Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.
This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well (if those links are still active after years pass). As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to make extremely unwise life choices, destructive to both themselves and others. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. The primary culprits in perpetuating this injustice are not average women, but radical 'feminists' and an assortment of sinister, dishonest men who variously describe themselves as 'male feminists' or 'social conservatives'.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further.
The Cultural Thesis
The Myth of Female Oppression : When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment. This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men.
All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured. In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?
Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights that men were given in even 1% of historical instances, falls flat.
This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, some other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.
The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.
At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.
Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.
This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.
To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?
The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to act on their urges of hypergamy.
2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.
3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce (in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.
Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.
4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.
These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.
Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.
We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :
1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. Her peak years were contained within marriage. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after her peak years are in the past and she has had 10 or more prior sexual relationships. Some such women have already underwent what can best be described as a fatocalypse.
2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.
For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In some Eastern cultures, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Eastern equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Eastern culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Persian, Indian, and Chinese civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.
In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.
So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?
Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who openly say that 90% of the male gender should be exterminated, the outcome is catastrophic.
The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.
Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.
The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.
So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.
This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose his job. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.
Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century. If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.
Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, I cannot recommend 'marriage', in its modern state, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life.
At a minimum, he should make sure that having children is the most important goal of his life. If not, then he has insufficient reason to enter this contract. If this goal is affirmed, then he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marry if he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two :
1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.
2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law - 'child support' as a cloak for stealth alimony and possible imprisonment).
3) He is deeply competent in seduction practices (Game), and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. Even this is a considerable workload, however. More on this later.
There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.
So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :
- a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
- b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
- c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
- d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis.
Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence, hostility often ensues from a mere attempt to even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?
Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities. Women often protest that a high number of sexual partners should not be counted as a negative on them, as the same is not a negative for men, but this is merely a manifestation of solipism. A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
The big irony is that 'feminism', rather than improving the lives of women, has stripped away the safety nets of mother/grandmother guidance that would have shielded her from ever having to face her Wile E. Coyote moment. 'Feminism' has thus put the average woman at risk in yet another area.
Game (Learned Attraction and Seduction) : The Four Sirens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but consistently has amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?
Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what 'Game' is, and the presence of many snake-oil salesmen in the field does not help, but as a definition :
The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.
The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and an entire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs). See Charlotte Allen's cover story for The Weekly Standard, devoted to 'Game'.
Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona. An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any non-compliant man a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny and accountability from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.
Success in internalizing the core fundamentals of Game requires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy, and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of Game are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn Game, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is (which I have highlighted in red above), and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about Game involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their own sheer insecurity.
For anyone seeking advice on learning the material, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.
'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.
Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.
As it is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressed of their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We see an immense double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.
Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debate a fair woman like Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Christina Hoff Somers on television?
Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The male non-compliance labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.
There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.
Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40-50% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.
But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.
So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.
This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow. Men have been killed due to 'feminism'. Children and fathers have been forcibly separated for financial gain via 'feminism'. Slavery has returned to the West via 'feminism'. With all these misandric laws, one can fairly say that misandry is the new Jim Crow.
Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate : As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.
Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals. Every day, we see men willing to defend women or do favors for them. There is infinitely more chivalry than misogyny exhibited by the male population. On the other hand, we routinely see anti-male statements uttered by 'feminists', and a presumption that all men are monsters guilty of crimes committed by a small number of people of the same gender. When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.
On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not. Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolized into love for these particular 'feminists'.
That misandrists are so unchallenged is the reason that they have had no reason to expand their arsenal of venom beyond these two types of projection. Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.
Men, of course, have to be savvy about the real reason their debate skills are limited to these two paths of shaming language, and not be deterred. Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?
'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.
One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.
But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny.
So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?
Social Conservatives, White Knights, and Girlie-Men : It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny. Equally culpable are men who ignorantly believe that acting as obsequious yes-men to 'feminists' by turning against other men in the hope that their posturing will earn them residual scraps of female affection.
Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. The girl herself was not the primary audience of the chivalry, as the sexual attraction of the girl herself was rarely aroused by chivalry, as the principles of Game have shown.
Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises. A distressingly high number of men actually support the imprisonment of innocent men for false rape accusations or job loss causing 'child support' arrears merely because these 'men' don't want to risk female disapproval, incorrectly assuming that fanatically vocal 'feminists' represent the official opinion of all women. These men are the biggest suckers of all, as their pig-headed denial of the effectiveness of Game will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors for the objects of their lust are exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men. No woman feels attraction for a needy man.
For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. The average woman is not obsessively plotting new schemes to denigrate and swindle men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning (which presently is the side of misandry). But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'. Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus :
Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman.
For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.
Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.
Why There is No Men's Rights Movement : At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received. The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Men being too afraid to be the 'squeaky wheel' even when they have lost their children and their present and future assets is a major contributor to the prevailing status quo. Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.
Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized. In this age of Web 2.0/social media/viral tools, all this should be easy, particularly given how quickly leftist groups can assemble a comparable apparatus for even obscure causes.
Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even a site devoted to the subject and I am not the primary author of this site. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
The Faultline of Civilization : After examining all the flaws in modern societies, and the laws that exacerbate them, it becomes apparent that there are two realms of legal/judicial thought that stand alone in determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical. These two legal areas are a) the treatment of paternity rights, and b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations. The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men (for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today), which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process. Similarly, there is little resistance to 'feminist' laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers. The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights, as we have seen above. These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines. All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.
The Economic Thesis
Ceilings and Floors of Glass : Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men. If these outcomes are the results of the actions or choices of men who suffer from them, then is that not the same reason that determines who rises above the 'glass ceiling'? The inability of misandrists to address these realities in good faith tells us something (but not everything) about the irrational sense of entitlement they have.
One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'. Let me dispense of this myth, in the process of which we will see why it is profitable and seductive for them to broadcast this bogus belief.
It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?
If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit? When the 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' of a nun congregation wrote to TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, that his company should have more women in its Board of Directors, Rodgers replied with a letter explaining why the pursuit of profit could not accommodate such political correctness. That a nun congregation pays a recession-proof salary to someone as a 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' is itself an example of a pampered existence, and I was unaware that convents were now advancing secular Marxist beliefs.
Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world. Market forces would correct such mispricings in female compensation, if they actually existed. But they do not, and those who claim that they do are not just advertising an extreme economic illiteracy, but are quite happy to make similarly illiterate women angry about an injustice that does not exist. I notice that women who actually are/were CEOs of publicly traded companies never claim that there is a conspiracy to underpay women relative to their output.
I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women, if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
The 'Mancession' and the 'Sheconomy' : I would be the first to be happy if the economic success of women were solely on the basis of pure merit. For many of them, it is. But far too much has been the result of not market forces or meritocracy, but political graft and ideology-driven corruption.
In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate. If this was simply due to market forces, that would be fine. However, 'feminist' groups have lobbied hard to ensure that government stimulus funds were steered to boost female employment at the expense of assistance for men. The leftist Obama administration was more than eager to comply, and a forcible transfer of wealth was enacted, even though it may not have been the best deployment of money for the economy.
Maria Shriver, a woman who has the most fortunate of lives from the vast wealth earned first by her grandfather and then by her husband, recently published 'A Woman's Nation : The Shriver Report', consisting of gloating about how women were now outperforming men economically. The entire research report is full of all the standard bogus feminist myths and flawed statistics, as thoroughly debunked here, as well as the outright sexism of statements like 'women are better managers' (imagine a man saying the reverse). Furthermore, the report reveals the typical economic illiteracy (evidenced by, among other things, the ubiquitous 'women are underpaid' myth), as well as belief that businesses exist to act as vehicles of social engineering rather than to produce a profit.
All of this bogus research and organized anti-male lobbying has been successful. As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm. The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income. Beyond the tyranny of this, it also costs a lot of taxpayer money to jail a growing pool of unemployed men. Clearly, moving more and more men out of a tax-generating capacity and into a tax-consuming capacity is certainly going to do two-fold damage to governmental budgets. The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.
The Government Bubble : While public sector vs. private sector workforce distribution is not highly correlated to gender, it is when the focus is on women earning over $100,000 or more. This next chart from the Cato Institute shows that when total compensation (wages + benefits) are taken into account, the public sector has totally outstripped the private sector this decade. Has the productivity of the typical government employee risen so much more than that of the private worker, that the government employee is now paid twice as much? Are taxpayers receiving value for their money?
It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). That is not troubling by any means, but the fact that women consume two-thirds of all US healthcare, despite most of this $2.5 Trillion annual expenditure being paid by men, is certainly worthy of debate. It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth. But it was also 'natural' for men to finance this for only their wives, not for the broader community of women. The healthcare profession also employs an immense number of women, and not just in value-added roles such as nursing, but even in administrative and bureaucratic positions. In fact, virtually all government spending except for defense and infrastructure, from Medicare to Obamacare to welfare to public sector jobs for women to the expansion of the prison population, is either a net transfer of wealth from men to women, or a byproduct of the destruction of Marriage 1.0. In either case, 'feminism' is the culprit.
This Cato Institute chart of Federal Government spending (click to enlarge) shows how non-defense expenditures have steadily risen since 1960. The decline in defense spending, far from being a 'peace dividend' repatriated back to taxpayers, was used to fund more social programs. No one can seriously claim that the American public receives better non-defense governance in 2010 than in 1960 despite the higher price, and as discussed earlier, most of this increase is a direct or indirect result of 'feminism'. When state and local government wastage is added to this, it would appear that 20% of GDP is being spent just to make the government a substitute for the institution of Marriage, and yet still has not managed to be an effective replacement. Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.
The left has finally found a perfect Trojan Horse through which to expand a tyrannical state. 'Feminists' can lobby for a transfer of wealth from men to women and from private industry to the government, while knowing that calling any questioner a 'misogynist' will silence him far more effectively than their military fifth columnist and plain socialist brethren could ever silence their respective opponents. Conservatives are particularly vulnerable to such shaming language, and most conservatives will abandon their stated principles to endlessly support any and all socialism if it can be packaged as 'chivalry', the opposition to which makes one a 'misogynist'. However, there is reason to believe that tax collection in many parts of the US, such as in states like CA, NY, NJ, and MA, has reached saturation. As the optimal point has already been crossed, a rise in tax rates will cause a decrease, rather than an increase in revenue, and the increase in Federal tax rates exactly one year from today on 1/1/2011 is likely to cause another recession, which will not be so easily transferred to already-impoverished men the next time.
When men are severed from their children with no right to obstruct divorce, when they are excluded from the labor market not by market forces but rather by social engineering, and when they learn that the society they once believed in and in some cases joined the military to protect, has no respect for their aspirations, these men have no reason to sustain such a society.
The Contract Between the Sexes : A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out an adequate existence by working for two months out of the year. The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. Young men who exhibited high economic potential and favorable compatibility with the social fabric would impress a girl's parents effectively enough to win her hand in marriage. The man would proceed to work very hard, with the fruits of his labor going to the state, the employer, and the family. 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.
The Four Sirens changed this, which enabled women to pursue alpha males despite the mathematical improbability of marrying one, while totally ignoring beta males. Beta males who were told to follow a responsible, productive life of conformity found that they were swindled.
Men who excelled under the societal rules of just two decades ago are often left totally betrayed by the rules of today, and results in them refusing to sustain a society heavily dependent on their productivity and ingenuity. Women believed that they could free themselves from all their traditional obligations (only to find, amusingly, that they are unhappier now than they were then), while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations, particularly as bankrollers of women and protectors of women. Needless to say, despite the chivalry ground into men, eventually, they will feel that chivalry requires a level of gratitude that is not forthcoming.
To see what happens when the role of the husband and father is devalued, and the state steps in as a replacement, look no further than the African American community. In Detroit, the average home price has fallen from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. The auto industry moved jobs out of Detroit long before 2003, so the decline cannot be attributed to just industrial migration, and cities like Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia are in scarcely better shape. For those who believe that this cannot happen in white communities, have a look at the white underclass in Britain. The lower half of the US white population is vulnerable to the same fate as the black community, and cities like Los Angeles are perilously close to 'Detroitification'.
Additionally, people seem to have forgotten that the physical safety of society, particularly of women, is entirely dependent on ratio of 'aggressor' men to 'protector' men staying below a certain critical threshold. As more men get shut out of the labor market, crime becomes an alternative. Even highly educated men who feel betrayed can lash out, and just about every shooting spree and every recent terrorist attempt in the West was by men who were educated and had good career prospects, but were unloved.
While professional men will certainly never resort to crime, what they could resort to is an unwillingness to aid a damsel in distress. More men will simply lose interest in being rescuers, and this includes policemen who may also feel mistreated by the prevailing misandry. Safety is like air - it is only noticed when it is gone. Women have a tremendous amount to lose by creating a lot of indifferent men.
Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. 'Feminism' does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men, making both genders worse off. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.
Population Displacement : So we have arrived at a society where 'feminists' feel that they are 'empowered', 'independent', and 'confident', despite being heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, an unconstitutional shadow state that extracts alimony and 'child support' from men, an infrastructure maintained by men, technologies invented by men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived?
Now, let me be clear; I believe a woman should get to decide how many children she bears, or even whether or not to have any children at all. However, a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce.
Let us take a hypothetical example of three 20-year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events. When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. at age 33. As the table shows, a 1:1:1 ratio of three young ladies takes only 40 years to yield a 12:4:0 ratio of grandchildren. Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.
So how do we estimate the value society will ultimately receive from organizing itself in a manner that young women could choose a life of bar-hopping, shopping for $300 purses, and working as government bureaucrats to make the government a more complete husband substitute? If the sight of a pitiful 60-year-old Code Pink harpy lecturing 12 Muslim adolescents that 'gender is a social construct' seems amusing, then let us move on to the macro chart. This world map(click to enlarge) shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in 2005 (i.e. born between 1990 and 2005), in proportion to the country with the most children. Notably, Mexico and the US have the same number of children, while Pakistan and Bangladesh each have about as many as all of Western Europe. While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the 1990-2005 births already seal certain realities. Needless to say, if we move time forward just 15 years, the proportions in this chart reflect what the proportions of adults aged 20-35 (the female reproductive years) will be per nation in the year 2025. Even the near future belongs to those who show up.
Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, not by the conservatives that they hate, but by other cultures antithetical to 'feminism'. The state that lefto-'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state.
The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear
Humans like ourselves have been around for about 100,000 years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another 1-3 million years before that. For the first 99.99% of humanoid existence, the primary purpose of our species was the same as that of every other species that ever existed - to reproduce. Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies (humans did not live much past age 40-45 in the past, as mentioned earlier). For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable. Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative (FI) was the human imperative.
As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. For one thing, advances in technology and prosperity ensured that child mortality fell from about 50% to very low levels, so 12 births were no longer needed to produce 6 children who reach adulthood. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children. Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for 99.99% of our existence, now no longer is.
Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt. Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete. In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than 50-50.
Go to any department store or mall. At least 90% of the products present there are ones no ordinary man would consider buying. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume. Who buys them? Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back. This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops.
This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced. Some call this a variant of the 'Technological Singularity', which will happen many decades later than 2020, but even prominent thinkers steer clear of any mention of the obvious correction in gender-tilted resource flows that will occur.
The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation
We earlier examined how the Four Sirens of Feminism unexpectedly combined and provided women with choices they never could have dreamed of before. Some women made positive contributions to society, but quite a few let misandry and unrestrained greed consume them, and have caused the disastrous situation we presently see. Technology always causes disruption in the status quo, always creating new winners and losers with each wave. In centuries past, Gloria Steinem would be a governess and Mystery would be a court jester.
The title of this article is not the 'Misandry Crisis' or even 'The War on Misandry'. It is 'The Misandry Bubble', because the forces that will ensure the demise of the present mistreatment of men are already on the horizon. So allow me to introduce the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation as a coalescence of many of the forces we have discussed, which will shred the present, unsustainable hierarchal order by 2020 :
1) Game : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man. Whether he uses it to become a fully immersed pick-up artist, to create a soulmate bond in a lifelong monogamous marriage, or even to engage in only infrequent yet efficient trysts with women, a man is free from the crushing burdens that uninitiated beta men are capitulating under.
When a man learns that there is no reason for him to buy a $50,000 car, $20,000 ring, $50,000 bridezilla festival, overpriced house contrary to any logical financial analysis, or a divorce lawyer to save him from ruin even though he was the victim of spousal abuse, there is no greater feeling of liberation and jubilation, equating to a windfall of $2 Million for all objective and subjective purposes. When a man realizes that reducing his income by half will now have little detriment to his sexual prospects, he can downsize to an easier job with a shorter commute and lower stress. When a man learns that appeasing a woman is the exact opposite of what he should be doing during the process of romancing and seducing her, that entire humiliating gauntlet of rituals can be jettisoned.
The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master Game, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved.
2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize or master the core skills of Game? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and near-slavery as second class citizens? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.
For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or 'Skinimax' content of the 1990s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder.
This site has written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by 2012. 3-D/holographic images with haptic interfaces and sufficient AI will make rudimentary 'virtual sex' a technology available to many men well before 2020, but by 2020 we will see this cross certain thresholds that lead to a dramatic market impact far greater than contraceptive pills and Internet pornography combined. A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.
For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range. Real 10 > VR 10 > Real 7, making irrelevant the claim that a virtual 10 is not as good as a real 10 (under 1% of all women), when the virtual 10 is really competing with the majority of women who are 7s and lower. Women are unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores. As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of 'beta testing'. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Game competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. I do not believe that 'sexbots' will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, simply because such a robot is not competitive with VR on cost, privacy, versatility, and upgradeability.
Some 'feminists' are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however.
Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.
3) Globalization : The Third Horseman is a vast subject that contains many subtopics. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country :
a) Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.
b) Expatriation : While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America. The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men 'misogynists' are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn't 'feminists' be happy if 'misogynists' are leaving? We thus see yet another example of 'feminists' seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return.
The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.
c) Medical Tourism : The sum total of donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy costs $150,000 or more in the US, but can be done in some countries for just $20,000 at top-quality clinics that are building a strong track record. While most customers of foreign fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. While this avenue is not for everyone, the ability to have a child for $20,000 (and even two children in parallel with two different surrogates in a two-for-one bundle deal for $35,000) now exists. The poor surrogate mother in India or the Philippines earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man.
Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures, and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector. Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women's inflated salaries safe for so long.
So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo.
4) Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.
The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America (although is still in some effect in rural America). The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement. Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. The 'feminist' hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. A state with a small government is far more sustainable than a state seeking an ever-expanding government, which then cannot be financed, and descends into a mass of contradictions that is the exact opposite of what the statists intended. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia.
These Four Horsemen will all converge at the end of this decade to transfer the costs of misandry from men onto women, and on 1/1/2020, we will assess how the misandry bubble popped and the fallout that women are suffering under for having made the mistake of letting 'feminists' control their destiny (update : 1/1/2020 article here). Note that I did not list the emergence of any Men's Rights Movement as one of the Four Horsemen, as this is unlikely to happen for aforementioned reasons.
For those who dispute the Four Horsemen (I'd like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own), women had their Four Sirens, and now the pendulum has to swing at the same amplitude in the other direction. Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of 2010.
Who Should Care?
As we leave a decade where the prime threat to US safety and prosperity was Islamic terrorism and enter a decade where the prime threat is misandry, anyone concerned with any of the following topics should take heed :
- Anyone with a son, brother, nephew, or mentee entering marriage, particularly without the partial protection of a pre-nuptial agreement. As described earlier, he can be ruined, separated from his children, and jailed in a manner few would suspect could happen in any advanced democracy. The suicide rate of divorced men is shockingly high.
- Anyone who agrees that a civilization where most adults are part of two-parent families will always outcompete and displace a civilization where a large portion of adults are not leading two-parent families.
- Anyone with minor grandchildren, nieces and nephews, or great-grandchildren. The divorce laws incentivize using children as pawns during divorce, and no serious thinker can dispute the trouble that haunts the children of divorce for years thereafter. 'Feminists' concoct bogus research about the role of the father being superfluous, but observation of real-world examples proves otherwise.
- Anyone who owns an expensive home in a community of families. The growing aversion of men for marriage will create fewer new families, and thus fewer buyers for those homes. I remind everyone that if they have 20% equity in their home and an 80% mortgage, even a 20% decline in home prices is a 100% decline in your equity, which might be all of your net worth. Detroit, the first major US city to see a loss of beta male employment prospects, saw the average home price drop from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. A decline smaller than this would devastate the net worth of remaining home owners, and can happen in any community of single-family homes. If you own a home, your net worth is inseparably tied to the formation and preservation of two-parent families.
- Anyone concerned about rising crime. 72% of African American children are born to single mothers, and the number among white children is approaching 30%. Furthermore, the 'mancession' will eventually ensure that the only means of survival for many men is to form gangs and take valuables by force. Unloved men, who in the past would have been paired with wives, are easy for both gangs and terrorist organizations to recruit.
- Anyone concerned about the widening federal and state budget shortfalls and medicare/healthcare costs, for which the state continues to insist on raising taxes rather than cut spending. Fewer men choosing to work the long hours needed to earn high incomes will break the model of the top 10% paying 75% of taxes, and more men being jailed for alimony arrears, not being good enough in bed, or defending himself from spousal violence will drain tax coffers. It costs $60,000 a year to maintain a prisoner.
- Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is a valuable document. 'Innocent until proven guilty' does not apply in many areas of feminist-heavy law. The previously discussed shadow state is using 'feminism' to conduct all sorts of horrible tyranny against innocent men, which greatly compromises America's ability to claim that it is still the land of the free.
- Anyone concerned about national security. As more men feel that this society is betraying him, fewer will risk their lives in the military only to find that divorce lawyers have been persuading his wife to leave the marriage while he is deployed. Coming home from one battlefield only to be inserted in another is a shameful betrayal of our finest young men. Furthermore, I have already mentioned how British men are turning to Islamic courts in the hopes avoiding ruin at the hands of British misandrist laws. Quite a few men may conclude that Islam offers them more than their native society that has turned against their gender, and will act towards self-preservation.
- Any woman who is appalled by the treatment of any woman who deviates from 'feminist' doctrine, and who is troubled by the words and actions of self-proclaimed 'feminists' today. If you believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you should worry about what 'feminists' are courting by kicking a friendly dog too many times.
- Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry, where the costs of crazed 'feminism' are soon going to be transferred away from men and onto women, even if she had no interest in this doctrine of hate. As stated in the Executive Summary at the start, 'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.
I could list even more reasons to care, but the point is clear. The biggest challenge of the decade is summarized before us.
Update (7/1/2012) : On this day, July 1, 2012, exactly 25% of the decade described in this article has passed. I did not include a poll on the original launch date of 1/1/2010, as the concepts described here were too radical for the majority of readers. But now that these ideas have become more mainstream, I can include a simple poll on the subject of whether we are indeed in a Misandry Bubble (poll closed after 60 days).
Conclusion
I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' is also powerful. As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. Regular readers know of this website's track record of predictions being accurate, and heed my words when I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade. So here, on the first day of the '201x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles.
As mentioned at the top, what you have just finished reading is the equivalent of someone in 1997 predicting the entire War on Terror in vivid detail. The level of detail I have provided about the collapse of the Misandry Bubble will unfold with comparable accuracy as when my co-blogger predicted the real estate bubble two years beforehand, and the exact level the stock market would bottom at, 6 months before the fact. Similarly, misandry is the premier cultural bubble of this age.
This website has predicted that the US will still be the only superpower in 2030, but I am not so sure, so I will introduce a caveat that US vitality by 2030 is contingent on a satisfactory and orderly unwinding of the Misandry Bubble. It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard. For this reason, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.
I want to extend my thanks to Instapundit, Dr. Helen, Kim du Toit, The Spearhead, RooshV, and many others for their support of this article.
Required Reading :
Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form Misandry Party
The Sixteen Commandments of Game
The Medicalization of Maleness
The Feminist War on Everything Civilized
Feminist Gulag : No Prosecution Necessary
Decivilizing : Human Nature Unleashed
Note on Comments : As Typepad only allows 100 comments per page, here is a direct link to page nine, where you can comment.
Just because I linked to a particular blog does NOT mean that I endorse all of the other views of that author. Are 'feminists' all willing to be responsible for all of the extremism that any other feminist utters (note that I have provided links to 'feminists' openly calling for slavery, castration, and murder of men without proving him guilty of anything)? Also, you will see Pavlovian use of the word 'misogyny' dozens upon dozens of times, so remember what I wrote about the importance of not taking that at face value, as it is merely a manifestation of projected misandry, as well as a defense mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for genuine wrongdoings of 'feminists'.
Engineer,
I find it odd that you mention white males
Where did I mention 'white males'?
Also, like Roissy, for some reason you mention the politically left and feminism as if it were part of the same group.
For the most part, yes, since 'feminism' is impossible without a very large, expensive police state. While everyone who expands the state is not a feminist, the quickest way to cut down feminism is to shrink the state.
However, note that I also slam conservatives for their white-knighting chivalry that is obsolete, and does more harm than good.
I am a 28 year old chronically single black male
Have you tried looking into Game (the Venusian Arts)? Do you know about Obsidian? He can help you.
Stick around, and I look forward to your forthcoming comments.
Posted by: The Futurist | June 11, 2010 at 11:52 PM
I'm a fairly young man, and I have proudly NEVER treated any woman, besides my "romantic partner" (both disagree with marriage for the same reasons you mentioned) with any special treatment. I treat them exactly the same as I would if it was a man. This has infuriated them, and some to shocking extents. They think that just because they can flout their sexuality means that I care?
I really enjoyed this article, and managed to click on every link. This subject has bothered me since I was young (I think it started with the sexism in schools). I'm glad some men have thought, and researched thoroughly on, this blatantly obvious issue which our culture faces today.
Posted by: JohnSilver | June 13, 2010 at 12:31 AM
This should be mandatory reading for all members of the western civilization
Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2010 at 04:48 PM
It is funny how narrow minded most articles on misandry are.
It is convenient for men in developed countries to beat their chest and cmplain about misandry.
They forget all the other countries that are still developing where women are trafficked, raped, punished for been widowed and have no rights r not recognised in the laws.
If a deeper study was taken to understand the meaning of equity instead of equality it would help most people understand what is going on, equity is not about taking a bag of potatoes and sharing it 50:50, it is recognising that the investment banker can afford 30% and the janitor needs 70% because it will probably take him a longer time to afford another bag of potatoes.
If you think women are stronger,lol look at movies, even at cosmopolitan, half of the articles are about being able to catch a man and tricks you can try in bed to please your man. Movies are all about sexy females in skin tight suits that are sexy, strong and in the end dependent on the male hero figure (lol like I can be sexy in heels, keep my medical job and find time to manage a family with a "Tony Stark" figure.
The important questions are not about alimony or who commits more adultery or how men cheat more than women or the opposite.
For me, I want a future where my daughter will know that her worth was not in how early she married, how many children or how long she stayed married but in her ability to contribute to society in anyway she chose as an individual, as a human being first. The same for my son, I do not want him to ever rate his worth by how good a provider he is or "machismo".
The writer even shows his biased views by showing a table which shows that a feminist like me will have no chance in hell to have a child,lol. Poor guy, if you only knew the truth, most of the happily married women I know are feminists, they might not have married early but they are 30 years into it, still working and fighting with their men by their sides(and this is in a developing country in Africa!)
I am a feminist, but I love the men in my life, my friends, my boyfriend and my father figures. I realise their weakness and are grateful for their strenghts. I am grateful that I have a relationship were there is no "head" where we both know when to step back and let the other lead.
For as long as man retains his individuality, there will never be a world where any sex will always dominate.
It is even evidenced by remarks on this blog where "modern women" make remarks to wishing things were the same like in the "good old days" where women's roles were clearly defined and relegated to house hold chores,lol.
What I see in this misandry movement is fear and I can understand that, things are beginning to change and societal norms are changing. For women we know we are expected to be stronger but for men, their roles are not so clear.
It is terrifying for most of them.
feminist voices are not all about misandry, the same way it will be a grave injustice to quote that all men are sexists and rapists.
We can quote statistics and talk about laws localised to one country but until a man can live the life of women in developing countries in Africa or Asia where your legs can be pried apart and you can be cut for no reason than culture, where rape is a form of punishment, where you are beaten to death and there is no one to protect you,where you are worth nothing till you are linked to a man.
Then you can come back and talk about misandry and I will listen
Posted by: Natalie | June 24, 2010 at 07:57 PM
Natalie,
They forget all the other countries that are still developing where women are trafficked, raped, punished for been widowed and have no rights r not recognised in the laws.
This is not forgotten at all. It is you, in fact, that conveniently ignores that comparably bad things are being done to MEN in the US today.
When you express concern for the mistreatment of men, then I might consider you to be a fair thinker.
The writer even shows his biased views
Projection, since your claims are already debunked in the article, yet you predictable avoided that.
Poor guy, if you only knew the truth, most of the happily married women I know are feminists,
You are using the 1950s version of the word 'feminist'. Not a peep from you about how anti-male so many laws are is either ignorant or malevolent on your part (or both).
feminist voices are not all about misandry,
Nowadays, about 90% of them are. This is heavily supported by research in the article.
Then you can come back and talk about misandry and I will listen
Your 'listening' or not is not of value. You predictably cannot address the misandry against men in the US, which many women are in fact speaking out against (see linked sources). You have steered clear of any of the points in the article, instead taking the lazy route of not taking any responsibility for your own goals, but rather want to pass judgement on others from a pseudomoral, self-appointed pedestal.
You are about 50 years behind the times, Natalie. What you think is 'advanced' is like someone from 1960 lauding the progress made since 1910 by 1960.
Posted by: The Futurist | June 24, 2010 at 10:03 PM
The Futurist,
An excellent article. As a "beta" male, I find American women nearly impossible to deal with, and have virtually no incentive to get married. Globalization has provided me with alternatives that make American women increasingly irrelevant to my overall happiness. Many women will no doubt label me a "loser" for looking elsewhere, but given my track record I don't feel I have much of a choice.
I sincerely hope you are correct about the Misandry Bubble, but I am not optimistic.
Posted by: Kursch | June 25, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Kursch,
Thanks.
An excellent article. As a "beta" male, I find American women nearly impossible to deal with,
The Venusian Arts were created and refined to overcome this. But even that also works on foreign women just as well.
Check it out. You will see quick jumps in your level of success.
Posted by: The Futurist | June 25, 2010 at 08:47 PM
"The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced."
Exactly correct, and that is exactly what will take place in the US and European countries. There is no other path. If anything, you are guilty of understatement in this remarkable summation.
Unfortunately, the inane practice of "Game" as referred to in relations with the "liberated" female will only accelerate the process. More long term success could achieved in picking up a a rattlesnake. Any "game" can and will end in catastrophe with those three little words, "He raped me."
With the traditional gender roles reversed and no prospect of a return to the so called traditional arrangement, decline, fall and disintegration is inevitable.
As for moving to India-sounds like a prudent plan in light of the gathering storm.
Posted by: Gary | June 28, 2010 at 08:06 PM
Gary,
Any "game" can and will end in catastrophe with those three little words, "He raped me."
Well, no, because Game makes the woman actually attracted to the man. The absence of Game is what leads to a false accusation.
So far, no one of prominence in the Game community has been accused of anything yet. This includes PUAs who have bedded hundreds of women (not that I recommend that), and are publicly known to be PUAs.
As for moving to India-sounds like a prudent plan in light of the gathering storm.
Perhaps. India today is where America was in 1950, so the 'golden age' is to come, whereas in America, it has passed.
Posted by: The Futurist | June 28, 2010 at 09:08 PM
Curious,
I addressed your 'points' many times over. You just don't like being schooled and can't admit that you were outclassed. Read what I wrote again - that is your answer.
The core of your irrational hysteria is the claim that :
a) A place with a rapidly declining population is economically booming.
b) Men want marriage much more than women, despite overwhelming evidence out in the real world.
Both of these points, and the others, were debunked completely.
I think I will follow commenter Jeffsquire's advice about not encouraging imbalanced people like Curious.
The End.
Posted by: The Futurist | June 29, 2010 at 08:37 PM
I have read your articles and all comments. I want to introduce myself and mention robogirls as an important factor in the decline of feminism. You might find some of the facts below useful to add to your article. I have posted the below elsewhere. Everyone, feel free to promote robogirls. The sooner men have this option and alternative, the sooner they will ditch man hating feminists and the sooner feminism will decline. Any predictions(2030?)/questions on what I posted below?
Hello everyone! I am a male in my late 20s with no luck finding a nice woman. I now believe it's not me, but those women and their unrealistic expectations. After reading blogs and comments, I am surprised and amazed that many men share my sentiments, beliefs and views. They also have no luck finding Mrs. right. Sure they may have luck dating women but find those women aren't their type and unsuitable for a long term relationship or marriage.
Millions of men are currently on marriage strike in my country. Other men are importing foreign brides into his country or expating to their countries. Marriage laws are much more fair to men's rights in other countries. The women, unaffected by feminism are prettier, smarter and respectful to men.
Feminism has ruined it for Americans(and several other developed countries) Women and men are equal, but different. Feminism has caused women to want to be like men and compete with men instead of complete men. Worse, feminists are full of misandry and men blaming/hating. They want to be superior to men and have all the rights while stripping men of their rights.
Already, women can make false allegations and have him arrested and assumed guilty till proven innocent. Some women falsely accuse men of rape for various reasons, such as regretting the sex or a desire to punish him for nagging her for sex. I know several men who have chosen to be celibate to protect themselves and their rights. Millions of men are looking for Mrs. Right. This is where robogirls come in.
From my research, year 2030 is a good timeframe when robots will be nearly or equally as "smart" as humans. Technology 20 years from now will be over a thousand times better/faster. I can forsee robots being everywhere in our lives and helping us with all sorts of tasks as well as being our companions.
A robogirl could have different programs("brains") installed for different duties. There can be programs such as teacher, nurse, guard, chef, maid, lover, mother, driver, pilot, scientist, etc. The possibilities are nearly unlimited! You can also choose the appearance of your robogirl per your own standards of what ideal beauty constitutes.
A low end robogirl may cost perhaps $10,000 but not look very realistic and come with limited memory and features. A midrange model will of course be better for $30,000 while a high end model at over $100,000 will look and act like a human. As technology improves, in 7-10 years, even a low end robogirl will be as good or better than a high end model of 2030. Some of us don't want to wait this long and have saved our $100,000+
There's so many advantages to a robogirl over a human, it's funny. Once you accept the fact your girlfriend isn't quite human, you will have a perfect relationship. Everything will be on your own terms/desires as long as it's legal and does not harm you or other humans. Imagine all the cuddles, kisses and even sex you want! No worries about STDs, pregnancy, cheating, false rapes, etc!
There's some downsides. Criminals will write their own programs and even design their own robothugs to do their evil biddings for them. You will see tons of robocops/roboguards being created for your own and other's protection/security. When robot costs become cheap enough, every person will have their own robot for one reason or another, be it as a guard, maid, companion and/or lover.
Besides robogirls, there will be roboguys and animal robots as pets and zoo exhibants. Just like having your perfect girl/guy, you can have your perfect pet. No worries about feeding, pooing, barking all night, biting, allergies, parasites, diseases, etc. The cost will be about a tenth of a robogirl. My sister has always wanted a dog but isn't allowed to have one. This will change when she buys a robodog oneday.
Right now, robogirls are a tiny niche market and can do little more than sexually satisfy horny, lonely men. I admire the fact they are early pioneers which will pave the way for the future. They are also having much safer sex than those fools who end up with diseases, getting her pregnant or going to prison because she "decided" it was rape. I don't need/want sex and am waiting for robots to advance further.
Nice guys like me want love, even if it's simulated, it's better than fake love. I don't believe in love after seeing over half of marriages fail and often for stupid reasons such as lust/greed. I also never want to marry in my country and probably won't go the trouble of moving half way around the world just to marry. That's if I can even find Mrs. Right anywhere. Too many men(and women!) settle for the wrong person.
Reading the comments when doing Google searches for "robot girlfriend" lots of men are positive about the concept and some will even put this in action. They can see the high divorce rate, inability to find Mrs. Right and want instant gratification. Women on the other hand are negative about robogirls because they feel threatened and know they can't compete. Why not get your own roboguy for companionship?
Perhaps those women aren't interested because they want a man to use for his money and today's current misandry laws allow just that. Marriage is to her advantage and she can divorce for any reason and take his children, house, alimony and half his money. Can't do that with a roboguy and itll even cost her thousands to buy one. My friend says women would rather share an alpha man than be with a roboguy.
I guess there will be plenty of women for beta men to choose for those who insist on a human. There are men who are saying men will start regaining their rights and feminism/misandry will be on the decline in an attempt to get more men to want to be with women instead of robogirls. I honestly don't think women are bad, it's the corrupt laws that are the root of the problem. Men have abused the same laws when they favored men over women.
I do see robogirls benefitting women in some ways. They can replace prostitutes, pornstars, strippers, etc, letting women get respectable jobs instead. Robogirls will give horny men their sexual outlet and liberate women from being taken advantage of by those men. Many men will choose robogirls over women, especially for sex as it's far safer and the robogirl can be a perfect "10" in beauty.
In my closing remarks, robots will change the world and mostly for the better. Us nerds will be the pioneers with more and more people joining in. Each of us will have our own reasons for wanting robots, it's not always about sex, as in my case. I want nothing to do with sex and my robogirl won't even have a vagina/anus. She will be pure, sweet, innocent, intelligant, beautiful, everything I want in a woman.
Posted by: Savethemales | July 02, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Savethemales,
I don't quite agree with your post.
a) A man who learns the Venusian Arts can quickly do quite well with women. Too many men refuse to accept this, because they can't take responsibility for their own destiny.
b) I don't think sexbots will have much appeal. The concept is creepy. 3-D/VR will be far more practical for most men.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 03, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Ive learned so much from your wonderful articles. The 20% who master the VA are known as alpha men. The other 80% will need 3-D/VR as you say. What I was thinking, wouldn't robogirls be much more "real" than a computer game or VR? He would be able to feel, cuddle/hug/hold and kiss the robogirl(something I want, something VR can't achieve, or can it? If so, when?). Alot of men want more than only sex. I pointed out in my article above all the things robots can do, including be a maid, nurse and cook which would serve and benefit those men.
You are an expert on future predictions, wouldn't you say that robots will match humans in intelligence sometime in 2025-2030? If so, wouldn't they be able to do almost anything humans can do, including take over most of their jobs? Ive been talking about robots and robogirls alot lately. I made many good points in the long comments above this one which I also posted elsewhere. Me and you know well that the women will find it "creepy" and attempt to shame men away from robots, VR and porn.
Posted by: Savethemales | July 03, 2010 at 04:18 PM
Savethemales,
80% of men cannot grasp why VA works. But once you become a man grasps *why* it works, then you are part of the 20%. The hard work to build expertise lies ahead from that point.
wouldn't you say that robots will match humans in intelligence sometime in 2025-2030?
In some ways yes, and others, no. Remember, you don't want women to get a male robot that can be a substitute either (although the 'status' component of female attraction means technology can never replace men the way it can replace women, sexually).
I am not sure that a robot can provide the emotional connection. 3-D/VR also can't, but it is not supposed to in the first place. It is meant to be a recreational diversion that uses up a man's time.
Women will use shaming language for everything, including a request for a pre-nup. A man should not be affected by this. In fact, a man's resistance to this makes him more attractive to the woman in question (again, see VA).
Posted by: The Futurist | July 03, 2010 at 05:42 PM
You're misinterpreting the statistics GK.
Assuming everything that was said is fact:
70% of divorces are filed by women. 30% of divorces are filed by men.
If 60% of the female filed divorces are filed due to adultery, that would mean that 42% of all divorces (60% of 70) are filed by women due to the actions of the husband.
SO:
42% - female files, male's fault (he cheated)
28% - female files, female's fault (no adultery)
20% - male files, female's fault (she cheated)
10% - male files, male's fault (no adultery)
So by your logic of "divorce because of adultery is the fault of the adulterer" that would mean:
52% - male's fault
48% - female's fault
You can't say that female adultery is the female's fault even if the male files then say that male adultery is still the female's fault because she filed.
Posted by: Elisabeth K | July 07, 2010 at 01:28 AM
Elisabeth,
There are many flaws in your comment.
If 60% of the female filed divorces are filed due to adultery,
Source? In fact, women file for divorce for no reason other than that the man 'was not fun anymore'.
So by your logic of "divorce because of adultery is the fault of the adulterer"
But the woman getting bored is still the main reason she files, rather than the man committing adultery.
Women commit adultery just as often as men, but women don't suffer the consequences of it the way men do.
Furthermore, given the very different nature of male and female sexuality, a solid case can be made that a female cheating is far worse than a male cheating (the pregnancy factor, for starters), but we don't even need to go down that route to show you that your comment is flawed.
Now, if you actually consider yourself to be fair, then you should attack the fact that the man pays even if the woman cheats. The person who did the wrongdoing should pay, rather than the current law of 'the man pays even if he is the victim'.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 07, 2010 at 01:49 AM
is the Marriage Strike real? I live in Canada, as a dual citizen I plan on moving to the USA when I finish my MBA. I havent lived there since I was a Child. Im 30 years old
I see it talked about alot but is it reality? theory is one thing , but in practice? do men collectivley in the USA avoid marriage and having kids?
great article by the way
please clarify
Posted by: Zac | July 10, 2010 at 07:00 PM
Zac,
A marriage strike involves just about 20% of single men not marrying. Thus, even if 80% of men want to marry, there are too few o them to go around, and the competition among women becomes extremely fierce and stressful, as only 8 out of 10 will have husbands when the music stops.
So even if you see a lot of weddings, and most of the guys your age marrying, that is part of the 80%. The other 20% who *could* marry, but choose not to, are having a very big impact on the prospects of women for marriage.
So yes, a marriage strike of 20% of men who could marry, choosing not to, is definitely happening. Women react to this by being more aggressive, proactive, and desperate (which you may have noticed).
Posted by: The Futurist | July 10, 2010 at 11:36 PM
I see allot of cougars in 30+ category( in the gym especially) and all my friends already have had failed marriages before 30 or in their early 30's none wish to get married again. it's amazing that the numbers are not higher with the laws rigged the way they are.
I see allot of them either waiting for perfection as they call it, or thinking they are way hotter than they are ,especially the cougs, or just becoming used up, its one of the three
I often wondered if it was in the bloggers heads
Posted by: Zac | July 11, 2010 at 08:35 AM
hahhahgha shit this is the funniest article i ever read
Posted by: gay hitler | July 22, 2010 at 09:13 AM
An amazing article, well researched and thorough which is spot on about the current situation. Should be required reading for anyone, male or female thinking about their future, especially if they are approaching marrying age. First thing, it’s interesting to see the women posting here; I’ve seen this pattern unfold on many a topic like this in the past. A small amount of responsible women who intelligently comment on the subject and see it for what it really is (I applaud the few responsible women who commented, you are in very short supply.), and then a much larger amount who attack, most likely out of fear of what they realize is true but don’t want to face.
That’s the thing, it is true and all one has to do is look around and see the effects, even in your own city. At my stepsons grade 8 graduation, the valedictorians where two girls. The awards for the highest marks, once more, two girls. Matter of fact, on Facebook, a buddy of mine proudly stated how his daughter was a valedictorian as well at another school. What award did any of the boys receive besides athleticism, (which a boy and a girl won)? Spirit, this was a Catholic school, and he was the best believer in the school, cause this is where the money is, right? As for the staff, this school goes from Kindergarten to 8th grade with 20+ teachers on staff. Only 3 where male…3.
Am I for uneducated women? Heck no, education is key for success and I’m glad for education being available for everyone, however, the school system has long become feminized and are teaching in a manner conducive for females, not for males. And of course, once these highly educated women graduate, this is where we see the issue, women marry up. Women seek a man who is at the very least equal but preferably greater than they so before we even get into the financial side of things, most women won’t be satisfied being a college grad having to date a high school grad. One of the biggest things that mystified me whenever I attended a school function there was the amount of Miss’s compared to older Mrs.’s on the faculty. I really had to wonder about that fact until I started reading sites like these. Currently for every 100 grads, 60% are female; I really wonder what it will be like in even 5 years.
As for the Ghettofying of the West? Absolutely, due to the feminized school system, and the devaluing of men in the family, is it any wonder why more and more men are becoming so immature? The Futurist is absolutely correct, the black community is the Canary in the mineshaft for the rest of society and smart people need to take heed, calling people here misogynist won’t make this fact go away, no matter how much you want it to. Ever wonder why black women get so pissed when an ambitious black man is seen with a woman of any other race, particularly white? It’s due to the vast amount of underachieving black men. Ambitious black men are rare, so when one is scooped up, it leaves one less for these women, leaving them with the dregs. As a Black man living in Canada, I’ve personally seen these frustrations myself as women even comment on my choice of partner, as if I owe them something.
Sorry ladies, no matter your race, a single man owes you nothing whatsoever, and that is why I think women get so scared at articles like this. The majority of their power comes from a ring on their finger, and if one isn’t forthcoming, panic ensues. In a MacLean’s article I read about first time fathers attending baby prep classes and one of the enrollees was actually a 50-year-old man. Maybe it was stupidity on his part, maybe he was roped into it, who knows, but the truth is it’s still a choice men have even at that age while women (save women with lots of money) have no choice. At the end of the day, I really think most women save the responsible ones are frightened by the very real fact that a 45 year old single woman has nothing to offer a 45 year old single man, while the reverse doesn’t hold so true.
I’ve got a buddy whose currently dating and even though he has never been on an MRA site, he still seems to have a good head on his shoulders and knows quite a bit about this subject matter. He is shocked as to how many 30+ women are single and dating and literally look at him like a piece of meat. He had told me that some of them act almost as if they literally hear their biological clocks ringing everywhere they go, the desperation written all over them even on a first date. He’s having a blast at the moment, dating one and simply moving on if she proves to be too possessive. He realizes now that he is the one who can be picky, not them.
As for being productive, a guy I work with has been divorced for some time. He pays his support and his alimony and has just paid off his numerous bills. He lives in an apartment, drives a 15-year-old car, doesn't have a credit card and is completely fine with that. Thanks to feminism’s teaching’s about being promiscuous, he has no issue finding Miss Right-now (and quite a few of them too) and has absolutely no desire to ever find another Miss Right.
I had always thought that feminism was going to burn out with women consolidating so much power that men wouldn’t want to marry and with men retreating from schools leaving women with less suitable partners, I was sure that was it. The Futurist covered all the topics in explicit detail and revealed the economic issues that most may not consider. Like all bubbles, this will indeed pop, and the fallout will be something to behold. I'm even noticing that on other blogs, some people can smell the upcoming paradigm shift. Make no mistake, the pendulum is going to swing again.
The Futurist, I have a question which you may be able to shed some light.
1) What about the average woman’s psyche allows for such shortsightedness? I mean, I know that as humans, we aren’t 100% logical but I can’t get my mind around how the feminist movement shoots itself in the foot like it does. Women want men who are more educated, and make more money so how does it make any sense to bar men from education and make Campuses so unfriendly? We can see this terminal pattern in pretty much every facet in the feminist agenda, a short term win which only tightens the noose on their neck in the long run, why do they do it?
Posted by: Max | July 23, 2010 at 04:09 PM
Max,
Welcome! Thanks for the detailed comment.
1) What about the average woman’s psyche allows for such shortsightedness?
Just like most men are very poor at understanding social nuances that women navigate quite naturally....
....Most women have very little ability to grasp cause and effect, or supply and demand. They are the equals of 8-year-old boys in this regard.
As an experiment, take any cause-and-effect case scenario, and try to ask a woman to walk through the step-by-step process of comprehending a likely sequence of events. Try a Socratic 'so what would happen if' method...
You will be surprised at the difficulty they have with this. Try it and see.
Being a black man in Canada must be a unique experience, given that they comprise only 2% of the population there. Black women there, in addition to the ratio problem faced in the US, have the added problem of too few numbers. There might be only 20 candidate black men within a city that the black woman lives in. How to even find them?
Posted by: The Futurist | July 23, 2010 at 05:45 PM
Thank you for the quick reply.
“As an experiment, take any cause-and-effect case scenario, and try to ask a woman to walk through the step-by-step process of comprehending a likely sequence of events. Try a Socratic 'so what would happen if' method...
You will be surprised at the difficulty they have with this. Try it and see.”
I will give this a go; I already have a suspicion as to how this will pan out. My wife is more responsible than most women I encounter and we had a discussion about this very topic not too long ago. It was then that I realized that even my reasonable wife was a victim of solipsism to some degree. When we discussed the major purchases in the house (such as furniture and that) she didn’t even realize that it was I who had purchased them simply for the reason that she wanted them. She was surprised that men could exist so simply and anything we do purchase is for our families.
Your point also seems to explain why there is such a short supply of responsible women. I’ve noticed that when I try to explain to women why this behavior is detrimental to not just men, but them too, they don’t seem to understand, usually trying to place the blame back on men for this or that. Sometimes, speaking to women who hate male chauvinism but then they turn around and are dismissive of men and their contributions to family, actually being worse than the chauvinists they despise. I’ve given up trying to explain to women that this is a disaster waiting to happen, and as my mother would say, ‘those who don’t hear will feel.’ It is a crying shame that it will have to get to that point, but to me it seems unavoidable.
“Being a black man in Canada must be a unique experience, given that they comprise only 2% of the population there. Black women there, in addition to the ratio problem faced in the US, have the added problem of too few numbers. There might be only 20 candidate black men within a city that the black woman lives in. How to even find them?”
And with that statement, you add more proof to your article. I happen to live relatively close to Metro Toronto, so it isn’t too hard to find black people. On average though, the amount of interracial couples present is actually very large. In just my family alone, my brother, three male cousins, and myself all married interracial. Only one female cousin married a black man. I see much more evidence even on Facebook that many of the black friends that I grew up with have followed suit as well. However, 2% of the population, this is such a disturbing fact to consider when one watches the news and everyday you see another crime committed by yet one more black person. It has gotten to the point that my mother doesn’t like watching the news; it bothers her to see so many blacks breaking the law. 2% of the population, I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t have considered the black representation to be that low myself.
Posted by: Max | July 24, 2010 at 01:21 AM
Max,
Your point also seems to explain why there is such a short supply of responsible women.
Unmarried women (and sometimes even married women) will use the voting process to aggessively strip men of rights, far more so than men have any desire to do to women. This is the root of many, if not most, troubles in society today.
Sometimes, speaking to women who hate male chauvinism but then they turn around and are dismissive of men and their contributions to family
For every man who is really a misogynist, there are 10,000 men who conduct the opposite of misogyny - pedestalization. Remember that. Pedestalization is vastly more common than actual misogyny. Thus, women who accuse men of misogyny are actually projecting their own misandry outwards.
I checked on Wikipedia, and Toronto is about 8.4% black, so there is certainly enough for a sizable community there. But outside of Toronto, the rest of Canada probably is less than 1% black. In Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, etc. a black woman would have little to no chance of meeting, let alone marrying, an acceptable black man.
In just my family alone, my brother, three male cousins, and myself all married interracial. Only one female cousin married a black man.
So of 6 black men (including your cousin's husband), five married non-black women, and only one married a black woman. Conversely, it would interesting to see how many black women you know, who are over 35, and alone..
A similar thing happens in the Indian community, but in different ways.
Have you been to Obsidian's blog, by chance?
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com
Posted by: The Futurist | July 24, 2010 at 03:55 PM
Just finished reading the original article, most of the links, and VI's 'dissection' (in other words, a second reading of the article).
I've read up on or at least was familiar with most of the subjects brought up, but I've never seen them all in one place and integrated so well.
I've also been convinced to at least take a deeper look into Game - not so much as a tool to pursue women, but as one to make my everyday interactions with women go more smoothly. At my place of work, most of my co-workers are women so learning some female psychology would likely be invaluable.
I'd read about the current gyno-centric society collapsing under it's own weight from forums like the-niceguy.com, but they were fairly old posts, as in "pre-recession". They didn't take into account the "mancession" that hit a few years later or that part of the bubble collapsing would be the loss of a lot of public-sector jobs (aka jobs where women are better represented).
@savethemales
This is something for beta males to look forward to, and does have distinct advantages over VR (namely, an actual physical presence).
What's more, since it's likely VR will have perfected the art of creating a software based "Artifical Girlfriend" before the physical form is at the same level, it will likely be a simple matter of porting to the hardware.
However, in the greater context of the article, I don't think it has much relevance, only because it's a prediction of the next decade. I don't believe 'personal care robots' with the physical dexterity required will be commercially viable before the end of the decade.
For those familiar with anime, "Chobits" is unlikely to become a reality within the next 10 years.
Then again, Japan is making leaps and bounds in this area - both in the robotics field and in "girlfriend simulation" games. It's not entirely off-base to assume something fitting the definition of a gynoid will exist by 2020 - It's just that I don't think it will be capable of much (especially when compared to cost).
Other then the couple of trolls, or the odd woman that posts half her life story with little bearing to the subject matter, the comments have been surprisingly intelligent and well written.
About VI - I think she (I'll just used she since it's too tiring using both pronouns) was dismissed a little too aggressively. Likely because she was quite aggressive in proving her points as well.
Reading through her dissection actually does balance out the article somewhat, although there's a tendency to push her own agenda (that being transhumanist philosophy and the abolishment of gender norms entirely). Which isn't necessarily bad. She's right in that the biological technologies required for people to a completely change gender are approaching, although not before the end of the decade.
Curious on the other hand seems more intent on arguing over a couple points repeatedly then to actually further discussion in anyway.
Anyway, now that I've discovered this blog, I'll try catching up on some of your other articles.
Thanks for the read Futurist. I'll make sure to pass the link to this article over to trustworthy males.
Posted by: Chris from Canada | July 27, 2010 at 01:42 AM
Chris from Canada,
Thanks. Max (above) is from Canada too - it seems that the number of Canadian men who can relate is a bit disproportionately high.
Transhumanism will certainly let people change their gender, but I maintain that under 1% of people have any desire whatsoever to do so.
Valkyrie Ice could have made his points without a ceaseless 'misogynist, misogynist, misogynist' tirade. Note that comments here are only a fraction of what he has written - even months later, he is still conducting a screaming jihad against the concepts described here.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 27, 2010 at 02:26 PM
Brilliant article. By far the most comprehensive piece that has been written on the subject to date. Very, very well done.
For what it's worth, like the last few of commentators, I too am from Canada (Montreal, more specifically), and while I can't speak for the rest of the country, I can assure you that the province of Quebec is an absolute beacon of feminist ideology. The social ills you speak of are not only quite well represented here, they are amplified. While feminism is definitely largely to blame, I suspect a part of that has to do with the province's history as well, to be fair.
I don't know if it necessarily belongs in your article, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the legalization and subsequent, eventual destigmatization of prostitution in western society. I've always felt that regardless of one's opinion on the practice, a legal, regulated and destigmatized prostitution industry would go a long way towards curing a number of ailments that currently plague society, the most important of which would be restoring the balance of sexual power between the genders. By effectively putting a fixed price on the supply, males would find themselves with a greater range of choices. Could you imagine female entitlement attitudes then? Not only would women have a much slimmer pool of prospects to pick from, they would literally have to improve their behavior over night, or face the risk of losing out to prostitutes. The paradigm shift would be absolutely enormous, at least in theory. Thoughts?
Posted by: Squared | July 27, 2010 at 04:49 PM
The Futurist: top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes
Assuming your are referring to the United States, that is incorrect. That figure is probably meant to represent Federal Income Tax, but leaves out state income tax, payroll taxes, property tax, sales tax, etc. The top 1% of Americans have about 35% of the net worth, and about 20% of the taxable income (with the wealthy usually having far more available deductions). If you include payroll taxes, then the federal tax burden for most Americans is roughly comparable.
On a side-note, U.S. citizens are woefully underfunding their level of services.
Posted by: Zachriel | July 30, 2010 at 06:50 AM
Zachriel,
At the US Federal level, 1% of households pay 40% of all taxes.
In states like CA and NY, the brackets are so progressive that the top 1% pay 50%.
Social security and sales taxes are regressive, yes, but it is also true that 51% of US adults pay no payroll income tax.
On a side-note, U.S. citizens are woefully underfunding their level of services.
I fully agree. Services should be cut to a level of expense 10% below the current tax revenues (in other words, all post-1960 programs should be eliminated), and then taxes should be cut 10%. In other words, a 30% cut in services spending, and a 10% cut in taxes.
We then have a balanced budget of taxes against service expenditures.
Posted by: The Futurist | July 30, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Chris and others, please check the thread I made a month ago. Im surprised those men aren't terribly excited. I have explained my stance based on facts, logic and predictions other futurists have made.
Ill be sure to give VR a shot in the next several years as I have nothing better as im a MGTOW and want nothing to do with women for obvious reasons. Any predictions what percentage of men will go for VR? Robogirls? When will feminism peak and begin to decline(timeframe range) when will feminism be completely gone? What about feminism in other countries? Any questions, ask me!
link:
http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/whats-your-take-robogirls-2030-could-kill-off-feminism-31309.html
Posted by: Savethemales | July 31, 2010 at 12:54 AM
bleh is a woman. mra justify rape indeed.
Posted by: neil | August 07, 2010 at 09:27 AM
The Futurist: Social security and sales taxes are regressive, yes, ...
While the rich also pay lower rates on capital gains and inheritane, which can represent large amounts of their income.
The Futurist: but it is also true that 51% of US adults pay no payroll income tax.
True, but irrelevant to the federal tax burden.
The Futurist: At the US Federal level, 1% of households pay 40% of all taxes.
The effective tax rate is the appropriate measure. According to the CBO, in 2005, the effective federal tax rate averaged 20%. It ranged from 31% for the top 1%, 25% for the top quintile, then 17%, 14%, 10% and 4% for the other quintiles. Notice that nearly everybody, except the poorest, do share significantly in the federal tax burden. Meanwhile, on the local level, the poor have a higher burden of sales tax, while the rich have a higher burden of property taxes.
The Futurist: In other words, a 30% cut in services spending, and a 10% cut in taxes.
Of course much of the current deficit is due to the economic debacle of the Bush years, but instead of being vague, you might want to be specific. How much do you intend to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense (which represent a majority of federal spending)?
Posted by: Zachriel | August 08, 2010 at 06:56 AM
Zachriel,
An obsession with 'taxing the rich' never works, because they simply go elsewhere. At any rate, socialism is much more rigged in favor of the super-rich than capitalism is.
It ranged from 31% for the top 1%, 25% for the top quintile, then 17%, 14%, 10% and 4% for the other quintiles.
That is already far too progressive.
Of course much of the current deficit is due to the economic debacle of the Bush years,
Actually, it isn't. It is due to demographic changes, many of which are due to feminism and/or socialism. Somehow, I suspect you don't want spending to reduce back to what it was during the Clinton years. I am perfectly happy to go back to Clinton-era tax rates if we go back to Clinton-era spending levels.
How much do you intend to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense (which represent a majority of federal spending)?
SS should be indexed to life expectancy and be less generous (no spousal benefit, etc). Medicare should be phased out. People have to be responsible for saving for their own old age. Defense is a much smaller component, so it can remain as is, except for a closure of bases in Europe and Japan.
A 30% cut in spending + a 10% cut in taxes = Everything is better.
I know you won't agree, but this will inevitably be the end result anyway once the budget breaks, and the US tax structure starts to make it more and more uncompetitive with other countries (which itself shrinks the tax base further).
Posted by: The Futurist | August 08, 2010 at 01:48 PM
The Futurist: That is already far too progressive.
Progressive taxation is one of the primary mechanisms of regulating boom-and-bust cycles. As the U.S. just experienced a bubble-collapse, your statement appears to be in error.
Zachriel: Of course much of the current deficit is due to the economic debacle of the Bush years ...
The Futurist: Actually, it isn't. It is due to demographic changes, many of which are due to feminism and/or socialism.
"Feminism and/or socialism" didn't suddenly take over after the Clinton Administration. There was a budget surplus at that time. There is absolutely no reason the U.S. can't put its house in order once the crisis ends, though it will take a combination of cuts and taxes.
The Futurist: SS should be indexed to life expectancy and be less generous (no spousal benefit, etc). Medicare should be phased out. People have to be responsible for saving for their own old age.
Turns out that many people who did save, who are now retiring, saw their savings wiped out, and have to rely on Social Security and Medicare as a minimum social safety net.
The Futurist: I know you won't agree, but this will inevitably be the end result anyway once the budget breaks, and the US tax structure starts to make it more and more uncompetitive with other countries (which itself shrinks the tax base further).
As the budget was in balance just a few years ago, there is no reason to believe the problems are insurmountable. The U.S. is still highly attractive compared to most other developed economies, though their recent missteps leading to the economic debacle have led investors to begin to hedge somewhat.
Posted by: Zachriel | August 08, 2010 at 07:18 PM
your statement appears to be in error.
Assertion does not make your point true. The US is far too progressive in its tax rate, more so than any other OECD country.
though it will take a combination of cuts and taxes.
Rather, a 30% spending cut and 10% tax cut.
Turns out that many people who did save, who are now retiring, saw their savings wiped out, and have to rely on Social Security and Medicare as a minimum social safety net.
If they speculate with their savings, that is their fault. They would not have speculated if not for the perceived safety net, so you have cause and effect reverse.
Taxing the rich to save the foolish is neither moral nor effective. SS and Medicare do more harm than good.
As the budget was in balance just a few years ago, there is no reason to believe the problems are insurmountable.
Yes. Cut spending 30% and taxes by 10%.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 08, 2010 at 07:43 PM
The Futurist: The US is far too progressive in its tax rate, more so than any other OECD country.
You're probably referring to the OECD report. The progressivity of the U.S. tax rate when compared to other OECD countries in isolation is skewed because other OECD countries primarily use direct transfers, including more for healthcare and education. When accounting for these differences, the U.S. is far from being overly progressive in comparison. (And even more so if you account for the gross U.S. overpayment for basic, non-universal healthcare.)
The Futurist: If they speculate with their savings, that is their fault.
Safe investments lost a great deal, even for savvy investors. On the other hand, some people have always been poor and couldn't save. Some had illness in the family and lost their savings. Some owned businesses and lost them in the economic downturn. Still others simply made mistakes.
There are two types of systems. The type where people have a basic safety net, found in all developed economies, and your type.
The Futurist: Cut spending 30% and taxes by 10%.
Which means cutting the social security checks and medical benefits of the elderly poor, so that you can have a tax cut. Bully for you!
Posted by: Zachriel | August 09, 2010 at 04:54 AM
First 3d porn film starts today, looks like technology is underway hmmmm 2020
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/50994-worlds-first-3d-porn-movie-begins-filming
Posted by: Zac | August 09, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Someone thinks feminism could last another thousand years! Ive shown him this article and he read it. I think he doesn't understand all your predictions which are based on fact. I personally believe the VR/robogirl technology is the biggest of the four horsemen, do you?
1. Any predictions what percentage of men will go for VR? Robogirls? This is getting discussed alot on a men's right's forum.
2. When will feminism peak and begin to decline? When will feminism be completely gone? What about feminism in other countries? What's the shortest, average and longest number of years for this to happen?
3. What will America be like once feminism begins to decline? Once it's gone? Will men regain their rights that they lost and/or will women lose their rights?
Thanks for your time, anyone can address the above questions.
Posted by: Savethemales | August 10, 2010 at 04:47 AM
Been a while since I’ve been here; the comments section of an article I find is usually the most intriguing. Just read some of the comments of “The End of Men”, ah, so interesting seeing the pattern repeat itself over and over again. Man, there is just no getting through to womyn.
Canada and the States are very intertwined, in more than just Economies. If you ‘catch a cold’, you can bet that we will get it too, it’s just a matter of time. As for Obsidians blog, never been there, maybe I should check it out.
1. Any predictions what percentage of men will go for VR? Robogirls? This is getting discussed alot on a men's right's forum
The amount in my opinion matters little, when you consider that the amount of suitable men is shrinking directly due to the effects of Feminism the results will still be the same. As a commenter stated above, sex is a definite means of control for women, and if 20% of 8-10’s don’t want to get married and 20% of 5-7’s are hooked up to VR, this spells quite a huge issue for women who are looking to marry up. More women = Less value plus Less men = more value and you have a situation where the competition will get fierce.
When will feminism peak and begin to decline? When will feminism be completely gone? What about feminism in other countries? What's the shortest, average and longest number of years for this to happen?
I think that The Futurist is right on the money with the timing. Looking at certain MRA sites, it seems that the ‘marriage strike’ has been in full bloom for a few years now and one thing is for certain; the Feminist Agenda is also pushing forward, sadly, pushing men away and slitting it’s own wrists in the process. As for the peak, maybe we haven’t reached it yet. Heck, in “The End of Men” the author was debating women’s ‘superiority’ with her son and her husband. They truly think that are better than men and don’t need our ‘services’ whatsoever. I think the Feminist Horde will up their antics in the future, which will only hasten their demise.
As for when Feminism will be completely gone, I would give it 5 years after the bubble finally bursts. Heck, even using the numbers that “The End of Men” are so proud of, when 3 women are competing for 2 men (and that’s not assuming that all men want to marry and not expatriate out or immigrate their wives in), I wonder how resentful women will become, hmm? They of course will look for a scapegoat, as responsibility is something that most women cannot do, so before ‘zero hour’ I bet Feminism will take a beating.
What will America be like once feminism begins to decline? Once it's gone? Will men regain their rights that they lost and/or will women lose their rights?
I doubt women will lose their rights entirely, but I do believe that women will lose the vast amount of their power. Consider the imbalance in dating, (2 men for 3 women) which will get substantiated with smart men leaving the country or ‘ordering’ their wives in, will erode the number even further. Consider that there will be an abundance of ‘layabouts’ and a dearth of ‘good men’ and the effect on the economy as The Futurist stated. The powers that be (or what’s left of it) will have no choice but to make marriage ‘safe’ for men again. I bet money that all that would have to be done is to make things simply more fair, and not biased (i.e. if a woman cheats, she gives up her stake in hubby’s assets.) Women will be surprised and shocked that throwing a temper tantrum or insults doesn’t get the same effect that it used to. Due to the conditions that they face, they will have no choice but to re learn how to appease men, as not to do so has far too many negative consequences. Personally, I think this will affect all women below 50 years old. I had read Novaseeker’s take on The Futurist’s article and I have to agree with it. Women right now are over valued and feel no reason to reciprocate the efforts they demand from men.
In time, I bet that the shoe will be on the other foot, their value will plummet, and they will have to work to show men that THEY are worth it, quite a departure from what they are used to. Not only that, but with the ‘glut’ of suitable woman, all men will become targets, even married ones. Now married woman who used to cruise by in their relationships will have to be on the lookout for the young naïve woman who is looking for a man to settle down with. Remember, the social network which women depended on in the past will have either shrunk or completely disappeared so in order for a woman to have a child, a partner to assist will be paramount. Remember that woman want to marry more than men do, even when they where ‘oppressed’? Yet one more reason why these women will come to despise Feminism, and anyone who utters “Woman’s rights” will be immediately dismissed. Only after all the benefits woman had are gone will they realize just how good they had it.
Posted by: Max | August 10, 2010 at 06:43 PM
Been thinking about this for a while, very intriguing questions STM. One of the many truths I seem to see over and over again is that most women tend to be inherently selfish. They won’t do anything or stop doing something unless there is a definite benefit to be obtained or a detriment to be avoided. It is said that while men have a sense of justice, women do not, save whatever justice serves their purposes. In essence, when you look at the West presently, there are no consequences for their actions as they can still obtain whatever they wish. What does it matter that men scream for justice, so long as womyn get paid, they don’t see the issue. This is the main reason why I agree with The Futurist, sure the Government will have a vested interest to get men working again in time, but women will also have a vested interest in the very same thing.
Okay, here’s the deal, what one needs to consider are the needs of women versus men. Women like resources, and to be courted, winded, dined, gifts of appreciation, spend time with them, talk to them, and essentially build an emotional connection, right? Men on the other hand, simply want sex, to be treated with respect, for their spouse not to get fat and essentially to be left alone in their man caves or with their own hobbies. Now, let’s consider, why would a woman maintain her appearance when if she or her husband chooses to divorce? She gets preferential treatment from the courts and he gets all the bills. Why should she treat him well at all? Yes we know that there are jerk off s out there in the world, but while a male pig may get @$$ raped in court, a female pig will get rewarded, right? Since women lose nothing, they have no reason to act in any way whatsoever which benefits men.
However, this is the main reason why I think as we get closer to the bubble bursting that Women will turn on Feminism. When women can’t find suitable men, and many will have to compromise, this will enrage many a woman as they wonder how this turn about came about. See what I mean, now that WOMEN can’t find men, NOW men in education will become an issue which needs to be fixed and this will be traced back to…you guessed it, Feminism.
Solipsism is a horrible drug, and women suffer from this greatly. They assume that a man wishes to get married just like a woman does, which is why they dangle their child birthing abilities as something we pine and wish for, something we can’t live without. This is also part of the conceit of Feminism because in theory, they can do whatever we can do (and better of course) but we can’t have children, right? So of course they are the better gender, looky what they can do. Look how well single mothers are doing right now as an example, and look how they can do work previously held down by men, right? However, they never take into account that men are still paying for them either through child support or taxes and they are using man made inventions which equalize most normal workloads, this ‘independence’ is nothing more than a pipe dream in reality.
It will come as a very harsh shock when suitable men don’t wish to get married like women had always thought. Consider it, even before we get into the divorce statistics, why would a man get married when his wife will get fat, treat him like crap, weaponize sex, and demand to be treated like she was when they where dating. ANY issues which happen in the relationship will be considered his fault and if he voices his opinion, he will be condemned. Consider a man’s needs, why would any man who knows about this sign up for that? When this becomes obvious to enough men, women will have no choice.
It will become all to clear to woman that it will be in their best interests to cater to men, so they best learn how or lose out. It will be a very hard pill to swallow to realize that men never wanted to get married as much as women do, and only when the threat of unsupported spinsterhood looms will women in the aggregate learn this and seek retribution on the establishment which put them in this predicament. Remember this; a man and a woman’s market value depends on how well they can deliver the needs the other gender desires. This is why Rich men have a bevy of hot woman and vice versa. So, educated and ambitious men, the usual precursors of wealth, will have a flock of woman to choose from, and this will anger women to no end as they cater to them, or compromise to the immature and the unmotivated.
What about single moms, they still have outs, right? Well, with little or no social services as back up, what choice does a woman have for support or a family now? The choices will thin out with only one road they can choose, matrimony to a man if they want children. I’m sure there will be women who can afford to be a single mother, but I doubt the majority can swing it without intervention. As social services dry up, examples will be made of the previous beneficiaries of the system as their support evaporates. More and more, it will become clear as day that it is in a woman’s best interest to cater a man.
Now, I had mentioned that this situation will affect every woman under the age of 50. Why would a previously married woman pull up her bootstraps? Consider the needs of a woman and a man once more, what happens to a woman’s value to a man as she ages? It decreases, how about a man’s to a woman? That’s right, it increases. I explained this to my wife that a 45 year old woman will normally cheat down with a younger ‘stud’ who is better in bed than her husband but doesn’t make as much. However, a 45 year old man will cheat up with a younger woman looking at it from a purely law of the jungle standpoint. My wife mentioned that a man wouldn’t do that because she would rape him in court, I asked her what would happen if that consequence no longer applied or greatly relaxed.
A person’s market value is also determined by WHOM you can attract, and a 45 year old woman may attract a 25 year old less financially stable man, but a 45 year old man can attract a 30-35 year old woman. I’m sure women in the past feared a man’s MLC and had a vested interest in showing him that she was a better catch than anything he could get out there and also not to leave a stable environment on an unproven gamble. So of course, meeting a man’s needs was of paramount importance when she could be left in the cold for a younger and hotter woman, which after the bubble bursts there will be more, much more than previously who I bet will be much more aggressive than before. Also remember this, while a 39 year old cougar may have a 26 year old cub at the moment, what do you think will happen when that ‘Cub’ gets a little older? If he does indeed want a family, he can simply get another, younger woman, yeah? Let’s add 13 years, hmm, lets see, the ‘cub’ is now 39 and the Cougar is 52, see an issue? Let’s also remember that with cuts to health care, women will have to depend on their husbands for support, those without may feel a sting not felt for quite a while. Once more, the examples made by little old ladies in ill-health will remind women of exactly what The Futurist stated in his article, that finding AND keeping a man is a well thought out investment.
The most stinging realization will be that they will have no other choice but to cater to men. They previously had everyone’s ears when they cried “I’m a victim.”, I bet they will be more or less ignored. They had everyone’s sympathy when they complained about their boorish boyfriends and husbands; one more they will be disregarded. They used to be put on pedestals and to have men perform for them like jesters in order to prove their worth, but now, they will have gun shy men who will be able to pick and choose from the large pool of willing women, and women will have to prove to men why they are worthy, and more worthy than their equally as ‘qualified’ sisters as all the other avenues are no longer as lucrative or even available.
Women will hate Feminism, because it will be in their best interests to do so.
Posted by: Max | August 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Thanks for your long comment, Max.
So you agree with everything the futurist wrote in his article? Itll really take another 10 years(and not less?) before the misandry bubble finally begins to deflate?
Im curious why you are married. Ill never marry, especially not in America! What's your stance on VR and robogirls, especially for us single men who don't want to risk it with a human girlfriend?
I don't expect feminists to suddenly change their behavior after feminism falls. Could this mean a future where most men will be with robogirls? Would alot of women go for roboguys or would they rather share an alpha male?
Posted by: Savethemales | August 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM
This entire thing is blowing my mind, so I'm just going to jump and skip from a few topics... So my brain doesn't explode.
Feminism is ruining the world...
You're saying that a world run by men is better than a world run by woman, which is not only high and mighty, but ignorant. And if that's not what you're saying, I'm lost. If feminism is woman's empowerment (And I'll give you that it isn't always carried out in a fashion that is realistic, positive, or even showing a good face to women and their causes, but) then the opposite would be men's empowerment. Which is the way things were run for a very long time. It takes balance. We balance each other out, the two sexes, we don't have to fight to be on top. Enjoy what the other can offer, accept, learn and appreciate. I think being under men for so long, when women got a chance to stand, feminists, as you view them, went a little too far to one side. It happens.
There are two sides to people. It's like all those men who think every woman wants a man who's a man's man. A man who has no "Mangina". Who isn't "in touch" with his feelings, I.e. a person able to tap into his whole self and view things from both perspectives. Women want men that can relate to them. It doesn't fix the "problem" between the sexes, but it eases some burdens if people can not be so close minded and think just from their side of things. How does being more make you less? My point is, things are backwards.
Onto the Cuckolding issue. Now,I'm sure I'm reading this definition right. Cuckolding is when a married man's wife cheats on him... How is this, A. more damaging than rape?, and B. Any more upsetting or psychologically damaging to a man than it is for a woman? Plenty of woman get cheated on. Maybe it's because we don't have all of that male pride making us have to be the best or die. I get where it comes from, you know, defend and protect or die instincts from cave men times, but really? Like interpreting the Holy books for situations of the day, you have to take a second and realize that you have to view that pride in perspective.
I can't remember who said it, boy I wish I could, but it both cracks me up and disgusts me. Someone said in their response to this article that it's a woman's goal in life (I should say ALL women) to get attention. That if men want to make an actual change in our behavior they should ignore us completely. And like good little lab mice we would start to pick up better behaviors to suit them and not continue to ruin society. I'm paraphrasing, I won't pretend otherwise, but that was the gist of his message. It was appalling. That statement pretty much put us back to times where it was interfering in a marriage, not saving a woman, if someone got in the middle of a man beating his wife. It says I'm not a person, that I have no goals or dreams or aspirations. That I don't have the intelligence, or the right to go out into the world and take a chance to make something of myself. It reminds me of when people thought others with different color skin didn't seem to have the same brain processes just because they didn't look the same. That they couldn't possibly function in the same way a "regular" human being does. It made me want to cry and rage. The sad thing is that there really is no talking to those kind of people. Some maybe, but not all. Such deep-seated views and thoughts... It's hard to break through. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm definitely not saying I know what's going on every where or how to fix things all at once. But I do think it starts with not pointing fingers and actually discussing. Not siting statistics, actually getting out and doing. I don't label myself a feminist. I'm not perfect. I AM a woman. I try not to judge. I do think that a lot of what is on here is hateful and ignorant. But I do value opinions. Ant I do think it took intelligence and time to post this piece that we all commented on, and I try to appreciate everything people do and find the good in it. So thanks. It gave me a reason to write this.
Posted by: Katie | August 15, 2010 at 04:31 PM
Katie,
Feminism is ruining the world...
The world, no. America, Britain, and Canada, yes.
Some Muslim countries could actually benefit from some feminism (as long as it doesn't quickly go to the other extreme like it did in the US), but Western women don't seem to care about the plight of Muslim women.
You're saying that a world run by men is better than a world run by woman, which is not only high and mighty, but ignorant.
As Camille Paglia, a woman, said, a world run by women would never have gotten us past living in caves.
Your problem is that you don't know how everything you use in your daily life was invented by a man, maintained by a man, built by a man. Your accusation of ignorance was projection.
Cuckolding is when a married man's wife cheats on him...
Cheats on him, AND uses HIS resources on a child spawned by another man.
Most men would rather be raped themselves than get this, as per polls I showed.
Any more upsetting or psychologically damaging to a man than it is for a woman?
If a woman was forced by the courts to work two jobs to support a kid that her husband had with another woman, only THEN it would be an equal comparison. Get a clue. A man cheating on his wife is not anywhere near as bad as a woman cuckolding her husband and making the man pay for the kid that is not his.
The fact that you are trying to justify what is the equivalent of rape for men, shows your misandry and lack of willingless to treat men as fully human.
Women want men that can relate to them.
That is what pick-up artists study. You need to gain a better understanding of how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think.
I think being under men for so long,
Women were not 'under' men. They often got to be safe while men died on the battlefield and did dangerous work, even in the old days.
I don't label myself a feminist.
Labels don't matter. You are still attached to freebies that feminism gives you at the expense of men.
You certainly don't have any awareness of the mistreatment of men that is going on in America today, much less an empathy for it.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 15, 2010 at 05:53 PM
A very interesting article, a first rate job.
But one thing occurs to me. Concerning the PUA angle, isn't the danger to men not marriage but fatherhood? A wife MIGHT turn into an opportunist trying to milk the man for all she can get, but a pregnant one-night-stand is almost sure to be one. Birth control is not foolproof.
I have several friends who have never been married but are being put through the child support ringer as hard as any divorced man. They seem worse off than a childless man getting a divorce. If there are no children in a marriage doesn't that disarm opportunistic women to a large extent?
Perhaps a vasectomy might be a safer than avoiding marriage?
Posted by: perro | August 18, 2010 at 08:57 AM
perro,
Yes, a one-night stand can lead to 19-21 years of child support = alimony. In fact, a woman can get pregnant with man A, yet name man B as the father.
However, even a childless marriage of over 10 years leads to lifetime alimony on a no-fault basis. If a man marries at 30, his wife divorces him at 41, she gets alimony until the day the man dies. The man cannot retire at all - his only release is an early death.
A pre-nup can, sometimes, shield against alimony, but it cannot shield against child support = stealth alimony. Feminists made child support immune to pre-nups so as to create a trojan horse for alimony that gets around pre-nups.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 18, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Great article. Unfortunately the rabbit hole goes much deeper and is far more sinister....
http://www.archive.org/details/TheDisappearingMale-CBC
Posted by: ollave | August 18, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Excellent article. I feel like I've stumbled on to the root of the beanstalk after only glimpsing leaves of it on the blogosphere.
Posted by: Mikko Rantala | August 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM
This is a long piece full of misinformation. I selected a couple sentences that are particularly ignorant.
"As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural."
Let's start with the word "natural". Natural to whom? Natural to Americans of a certain generation? Natural to certain African communities still in existence? Or natural to our ancestors who lived 20,000 years ago in foraging cultures that never even conceived of agriculture. The author makes the common mistake of assuming conditions existing in the present are "natural" and have always existed. This simply isn't so. Much that seems natural to us only feels that way because of acculturation.
"In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization."
Unfortunately for the author this sentence is inaccurate. Perhaps he/she uses too short a time-line or selects samples from to narrow a range. The advent of agriculture led to economic prison for women. Pre-agriculture, women slept with many men and men slept with many women. It was considered shameful to hoard your sexuality. Children were raised by all the men and women of a village. Often, children didn't even know who their "real" father was.
I suggest you read two books:
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality (Ryan and Jetha)
and
Love, Sexuality, and Matriarchy: About Gender (Fromm)
Posted by: Rob | August 20, 2010 at 08:43 PM
Rob,
Your knowledge is limited, which is why you engage in projection about 'ignorance". Hypergamy in women is well studied and established. Cultural restraints like old-fashioned marriage were controlling both male and female natural tendencies in the past.
The author makes the common mistake of assuming conditions existing in the present are "natural" and have always existed.
That mistake is not made at all. The return of natural behavior in the 21st century, after removal of cultural constraints, is being observed.
Pre-agriculture,
Doesn't this immediately contradict what you said in the previous paragraph of the natural tendencies 20,000 years ago no longer being human nature now?
It was considered shameful to hoard your sexuality.
Completely wrong. Genetic tests show that in the past, only 40% of men reproduced, while 80% of women did (a major point you conveniently ignored). The top man getting more than one woman exclusively is seen in Indian mythology going back 6000+ years.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM
The Futurist,
Your ambition outstrips your knowledge. You've attempted to do in a few months what people spend a lifetime on. Have you spent significant time studying or living with peoples who live under conditions completely apart from those you and I are used too? You seem content to cite one study on genetic testing. That is typical of an amateur who decides to dabble. Do some comprehensive research and discover that the world is an old and big place that has housed many different familial and social relationships.
If you have some intellectual honesty, read the books I suggested.
Posted by: Rob | August 21, 2010 at 06:57 AM
The Futurist,
Have you spent significant time studying or living with peoples who live under conditions completely apart from those you
Of course. I have lived in multiple countries, at more than one prosperity tier.
Do some comprehensive research and discover that the world is an old and big place
Again, it is pretty clear that my experience is more than yours. You completely ignored the point about Indian civilizational data going back 5000 years. The genetic data cited is well established and not disputed.
The rest of your post is just shaming language and vague dodging, which is the last stand of the person who cannot debate.
If you are so sure of yourself, go to Roissy's blog and explain your points to the commenters there, and how the views expressed both there and here are wrong (despite being heavily peer reviewed). Let's see if you have what it takes..
Posted by: The Futurist | August 21, 2010 at 04:39 PM
We would all be wise to consider the sheer breath and scope of the feminist machine. Men must begin to understand that we can't compete with women and associated government policy of feminism without it being in direct conflict with our social contract with women.
When women have Affirmative Action "women first policy" in job hirings and college admissions, when the Stimulus Package is devoted to women though 80% of all jobs lost in our current recession have been to men, men must withdraw from our social contract with women. (See article: No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers) We can not provide to women, we are in competition with them and government to be able to fulfill this obligation. Men are attacked and disenfranchised at both ends.
My brother is one of those 80% of men who lost his job. Though policies are designed to provide to women, men are still required to provide to women as well. My brother's unemployment is currently being garnished to provide to a woman. You can't disenfranchise men in the public sphere without creating a conflict in our social contract to women. Women have married the State and at the continued expense of men. Men must withdraw and go on the offensive.
The Paycheck Fairness Act which is on the horizon. I think the real goal behind much of this is pro business. This law and other “equality laws” are simply designed to drive down wages and marginalize the working class.
We should really consider why such a law would be passed in such a dire economic climate as this. The reason is because it is pro business. Suffice as to say that it can be called the Paycheck Sameness Act. It is the classic divide and conquer strategy, in fact it has been all along with “women’s equality”.
You turn the labor force against itself and make it a liability against itself. You can use women to divide and conquer in this fashion. This act is not meant to bring wages up, it is intended to bring them down and furthermore to stratify the workforce between hired workers and contract \ temps.
It will serve to push a large portion of the labor pool under the roof of outsourcing companies i.e. contract and temp companies. Once you control and monopolize the labor pool you control wages. This has in fact been the goal of multinational corporations in the United States for some time now..This has been the goal of globalization.
”I see in the near future a crisis
approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country;
corporations have been enthroned, an era
of corruption in High Places will follow, and
the Money Power of the Country will
endeavor to prolong its reign by working
upon the prejudices of the People, until the
wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and
the Republic is destroyed”
-President Abraham Lincoln
Take a look… Wages Vs. Productivity.. A Separation
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S15PXKK_MEI/AAAAAAAAATw/cDoaXXiFSwc/s1600-h/l_000c07bd4b8745c4946c2cca721ef026.jpg
Distribution of Wealth Plutocracy Reborn:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S15PWr48dbI/AAAAAAAAATo/jRcEL1iXrdM/s1600-h/Copy+(2)+of+ScreenShot001.bmp
Wages separated from productivity some 40 years ago. The middle class is being increasingly marginalized. If we do not take control of these issues and restore policy back to the American people we are going to witness something catastrophic. The United States is headed for collapse and Revolutionary civil war if we do not take action as individuals and as a people.
It is already happening. Political, economic and social instability will become more and more pronounced. I fear that if we do not act now, our country is headed for something more atrocious than many Americans can possibly imagine. I am greatly concerned for the future of our nation.
We must establish control of our government back to the people with diligence, passion and great haste. We don’t have much time. We must shrink the size and reach of government and banish it from our personal lives. We must restore Liberty, Freedom and Independence!
Centralized powers of the Federal Government must be removed at once. It is the individual states that are supposed to have all the power, it is the people at the local level. The states themselves are supposed to be separate and sovereign but united by the BASIC foundational infrastructure of the Federal Government.
James Madison wrote in The Federalist #45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
We must restore our Constitutional Republic!
When Lincoln said the following
“the Money Power of the Country will
endeavor to prolong its reign by working
upon the prejudices of the People until the
wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and
the Republic is destroyed”
When he spoke of “working upon the prejudices of the people” he meant such things as feminism would be used to divide and conquer us, to destroy us.
The Bolsheviks did the same thing with women during the Communist Revolution. They knew that if they could divide and conquer men and women they could conquer the people. Feminism was one of if not the most prominent instrument of the Communists.
Here is a feminist poster from the Communist Revolution:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S3-wdTWLnhI/AAAAAAAAAXI/G7im7izaETs/s1600-h/ScreenShot013.bmp
Here is a time line of feminist thinkers:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S5lUc3k3gvI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/tVx9cUvE_dc/s1600-h/ScreenShot015.bmp
Alexandra Kollontai headed up the Zhenotdel or the Women’s Department of the Russian Communist Party, i.e. what is equivalent to the new Council On Women and Girls. The feminists have been installed into our Federal Government. Our country is in grave danger! Women are the key to our usurpation as a people. We must confront allegations of class oppression WHEN EVER AND WHERE EVER men are accused of it!
We must inform women that their innate natures are being used against us. However I fear that it is to much a part of her. As such we must raise awareness among our Countrymen. WE MUST CONTINUE TO FORM RANKS. WE MUST THINK, SPEAK AND ACT!!!!
“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” -Frederick Engels
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
-Karl Marx
Posted by: Red0660 | August 21, 2010 at 05:00 PM
what happens when reproductive technolgy gets so good that we have all theese 40's old women doing it and younger women looking to do that after they get their careers going?
will they then get careers sleep around, and then get IVF as the new normal stage in life?. you see IVf could be improved and more accessible in the future?
then what?
Posted by: Zac | August 28, 2010 at 08:34 AM
Some 40 year old women are already using IVF and raising child(ren) as single older mothers. But most feminists are having 0 children. Alot of men are also wanting nothing to do with women and they will all flock to virtual reality girls in 2020, this is the biggest horsemen to ending feminism.
I predict there's an 80% chance that feminism will be well in decline by 2020, what do you guys think?
Posted by: Savethemales | August 28, 2010 at 01:55 PM
This is a very good article and pretty much sums up the RESULT. But the CAUSE is actually very different than the article and the responses suggest. It is not that feminists have gone out into the world and caused a lot of trouble for men. It IS that women have BECOME men. They have become their own heroes and their own helpers, and when they aren't woman enough or man enough, then big-daddy government takes care of them. Women have taken on male traits, when using female traits can produce the same positive results without the sad and destructive results we see today.
What is needed to heal this breach is a BALANCE of male and female aspects, traits or archetypes (pick your descriptor). If women were to remember their own unique feminine powers and mysteries, they would understand the balance of divine energies, would know that it is counterproductive to try to be like men, and would strive to regain the balance nature intended between men and women, and would no longer resent men or abuse them, or discount or minimalize them. Men and women are BOTH needed for balance in a healthy culture. Man is the conquerer/hero and protector, woman is the inspiration, nurturer and life-giver. This can be done in a modern way. We do not have to go back to "women as objects".
There are many examples throughout history of powerful women who were revered by, followed by and sometimes even worshipped by "real men". These women did not need to use male traits or male energy or compete with men. They had their own feminine powers and knew how to use them.
What the world needs now is a return to ancient ways where women had power in their feminine mysteries and men loved them for their differences, and knew they themselves had value as heroes, warriors and servants --servants in the sense of finding a woman they admire and feeling the natural urge to try and make her happy. Men who fall in love still try to do these things, don't they? Where are the women who want these things from men? Men's jobs have been taken away. Not by women....but by women acting like men and carrying male energy out into the world. The world needs a balance. Bring back the female energies and mysteries and the balance is restored.This can be done without losing any of the positive results the women's movement has given women. At the same time, it will also give men their jobs back and take away the double bind that men find themselves in.
I don't think most women who work to make better lives for women are really understanding the big picture. They just see their own little corner of the world. I don't believe they realize the harm they have done on the flip side of the coin. They just see the gains. Therefore, how can they know that having their male and female energies out of balance is the problem?
I'm starting by teaching women how to get heir needs met without being perceived as "nagging" or "bitching". It involves balancing her inner archetypes so men respond beautifully to them. Men love this stuff by the way. Who wants to be nagged and bitched at? It works for women; it works for men, but it is the female that I am educating.
Instead of pointing fingers, let's educate people.
Posted by: Vickie | August 28, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Vickie,
Good points.
I think that when feminism pushes women to only value male metrics of accomplishment, and devalue female metrics (motherhood, etc.), that is in fact real misogyny.
They are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, by saying that only round holes matter.
Again, good points. You have a major role to play, in speaking out against this. Do visit again.
Posted by: The Futurist | August 29, 2010 at 05:54 PM
Amazing article! You put it all very well. I always felt that I was getting the crappy end of the stick. I have numerous friends who have divorced and many of them due to their wives' indiscretion.
At first, I couldn't believe that they were paying alimony even though she cheated on him. Insane! Even more shocking was the case of my buddy Dave who is stuck paying child support to a woman who cheated and had the child with another man. This is simply absurd in any court of law. He says that it is because the mother says that his 3 yr old child views him as his father and the biological dad as an uncle. The woman was asked to choose who should pay the child support by asking her who the child views as his father. The father's testimony was not accepted due to so-called conflict of interest. And the child obviously couldn't be put on the stand. What kind of world are we living in?
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 01, 2010 at 06:52 PM
Let me share with you my story of a few years ago that will make for an interesting read.
I learned a valuable lesson years ago when I visited Colombia and met a nice girl. She also happened to be beautiful. Now, after seeing her for a few days and sleeping with her, I figured that we had embarked on quite a nice journey together. Well, it turns out that I made a mistake and she was only with me for what she could get out of me. She always wanted to go shopping for stuff - even things like more shoes, furniture, linen, computers, the list goes on. Initially, I gave in and bought her what she wanted since it wasn't too much. But after buying a laptop and desk, I wanted to know what she was using it for. She got mad and said that I didn't trust her. She had said that she wanted to brush up her computer skills to get a better job. She was a waitress at the time and I thought it was a great idea so I helped out. Turns out she made a profile on some dating site for foreigners (like me) to get hooked on to her. She had long-distance "relationships" with multiple guys in different countries (US, parts of Western Europe, Canada). To put it lightly, I was upset and confronted her. She got even more mad at me saying that I was snooping and that I didn't trust her. Then I asked her why so many guys? And she actually told me a bit of the truth.
She said that women have one thing to offer and that is sex. Guys will buy that over almost anything. She said that I didn't/wouldn't pay her because I thought that I was not like the other guys who would just pay up a small amount. So the costs add up and now I have to pay for all the times that I was with her. Even though it wasn't in money, it was in kind. Wow! I thought she was insane and of course, a complete whore. But in retrospect, she told me the truth that night and I am thankful for it.
She didn't have faith that I would stick around or be part of her plans for us. So she went ahead and fleeced me for all that I was worth. Any other guy would've flipped out and taken all his stuff back. But I wanted information more than anything else. So I kept going. btw, let's call her Caroline.
Caroline continued to tell me that those guys meant nothing to her and she was just setting things up so that in case she needed money or stuff, she could get it from them. But if I wanted to really be with her, then she would try to stop all of it. Now, I’m a nice guy but I’m not stupid. If a woman is cheating on me, albeit not physically and in a very weird way that I have never encountered before, I am not going to trust her with me or a dime of my money. So I tell her that I want to know more about what she has been doing. She says that she is not a bad person and that all women in Colombia do this – even the married ones. She was convinced that girls have no choice but to use their bodies to make money.
Now let’s be clear. Caroline did not need money (she worked as a waitress and I met her while out with friends) and she was not a prostitute in the true sense of the word. I know what you’re thinking - of course she is because, in one way or the other, she takes money for sex. The thing is that there are actual prostitutes and they charge up front. She was more of an indirect prostitute.
Before you think that I am defending her actions, know that I actually have more respect for the upfront prostitutes since they do not mess with your mind and heart. They simply tell you how much it’s going to be and you have no expectation or want for anything more. But with this “regular girl”, they still want to be paid but just don’t tell you.
Caroline is a very well educated girl. She reads psychology books in her free time and that’s what caught my attention the first time. So when she tells me something, I am all ears. She continued to tell me that one day I might meet a girl somewhere that has been biologically messed up and doesn’t want something from me. She did not mean that as an insult but rather as a fact of life. She proceeded to tell me that women everywhere are biologically wired to be like that. In most cases, they do not know it. The women in developed countries who are well educated fight this biological need of theirs and some fight it successfully for their entire lives. But they are still going against nature.
So after this, I needed a drink or a few. After pounding back a bunch, I found myself in a bar with my buddies and a bunch of random dudes. Good, no women around to rob me. So I guess I must have told them the story of my Colombian “love”. The guys are all laughing and asking me how old I am and what I do for a living. Well, I was in my early 30’s with a Masters in engineering working as a consultant making good money. Actually, great money. They said that I had a lot to learn about women. Obviously, I wasn’t too happy about that. I have been with and banged a lot of women – more than most guys I know. I have a few rules – like being honourable to my guy friends and their wives/girlfriends/sisters. But I have had my fair share of good and bad relationships. But here I was in a bar, drunk of out my mind, talking to bunch of guys I didn’t know about a girl they didn’t know. And was basically being called naïve. Amazing!
They proceeded to call over one of the hottest girls around and she came over. One of them spoke to her, got her to come over and hang out. I don’t really know how but Rick (one of the new guys) ended up getting her to come back to my suite with her friend, who seemed to be quite in to me. I was feeling emotionally numb so I wasn’t on my A-game. Ok, I really had no game and barely wanted to respond to her at all. So don’t ask me how this happened. I really don’t know. Rick and the guys pull me aside and ask me to get $50 out and say that it is very important that I have that handy. They tell me to give it to the girl (Michelle, I think) after she leaves. Now, I’m not a fan of prostitution so I refuse and even in my drunk state, I’m not enjoying this. I forget about the $50 in my sock and go back to my suite with Rick, his hottie, and Michelle. We get to the penthouse and the girls are loving it. The hot-tub is all ready and the girls remove their clothes without any hesitation and get in it. I forget about the Caroline and bang the living shit out of Michelle. Her ass was something out of a magazine. It was like god himself sculpted it. But I digress. Next morning, I remember the sock with $50 in it. Such a measly sum for anyone for doing just about anything. I pay my plumber 4 times as much and he doesn’t do much work let alone blow me for hours and then wake me up for morning sex. Yep. This was the life.
I had to get to the client site so I needed to get these people out of my place. I woke Ricky up and asked him if she could take care of my place and my stuff until I came back. He was more than happy but asked me to put all my valuables in my safe and said that I had to give Michelle the $50. Having no real choice and running out of time, I just did it. I woke her up with a kiss and tried to make it look like a joke. Gave her $50US and told her that it was for last night. Now if I had done this to any girl I know, it would have either evoked a slap or laughter. I didn’t get either from her. Michelle was happy and she started to take my clothes off and wouldn’t take no for an answer. This keeps getting better and better. Alright, never forget the $50 in sock.
Michelle was completely cool and didn’t mind other chicks looking at me or me talking to them. As long as I paid her even a little, I could do whatever I wanted and she was cool. This is in stark contrast with Caroline who was a possessive psycho when it came to other women. The wonders that $50 can do. Neither girls are prostitutes or consider themselves to be whores.
That story was long and maybe boring for some but it was to illustrate my point that women want something in return for sex. It doesn’t have to be much but just give it to them so that they do not take a LOT more from you when you don’t know it. Rick and his boys made this point by having me actually go through with their $50 ploy. I got taken for only a few weeks and a few days of heartbreak. You can get screwed for much more - say alimony and child-support. You don’t need a Caroline when you can pay $50 for a Michelle.
As you can probably tell, marriage is not in the cards for me. At least not in the conventional sense.
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 01, 2010 at 06:58 PM
Peter Feller,
Thanks for your comments.
All I ask in return is that you open the eyes of 10 other men, preferably men under 30, to the shocking injustice being done against them in this culture.
Some men will be whiteknights/pedestalizers and slam you for even suggesting that misandry exists. Avoid them. Bring up the topic only with men who appear to suspect something is imbalanced, but have not had the picture put into focus. Speed up their learning curve.
And then, request that they go and educate another 10 guys each, and so on. Feel free to use this article or any of the others I linked to, or others on those sites.
Just increase the knowledge level of 10 other guys. In that act alone, you have fought back.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 01, 2010 at 08:31 PM
GK,
A few years ago a man came knocking at the door of my fraternity house. He wanted to talk to us about something and we gave him some time to make his point. The problem was were young, stupid and also quite inebriated at any given time. And, we loved women (and still do!) This man was very passionate about what he believed in - pretty much the same idea as your article. However, he just seemed like a Jehovah witness type of person trying to get us passionate about something we didn't think was actually a problem. We thought he was loonie and asked him to leave. Before getting out, he told us that we would learn either the easy way or the hard way (something my father likes to say) and that even though we are dismissing his truths now, we will have to deal with it later in life. Fair enough, we couldn't contest that but most of the frat guys still thought he was loonie and that we were too young to care about marriage and the future. It's been a while since then but his words echo now and maybe I can reach out to my old buddies and let them know how screwed they can get if they don't smarten up about what marriage is really about today.
I have actually already sent your article to a few of my close friends and a couple of guys who have long-term girlfriends. The recurrent issue I am seeing is that every guy thinks that his girl will not do it to him, myself included. I cannot seem to fathom that my girl (and she is amazing) would ever betray me. Also, she is not natively North American and moved here recently. So her values are different, although that can change. So with that said, marriage would give her a nice chance to screw me that she would not otherwise have if we just continued dating, which is the route I would rather take.
What do you think a realistic alternate path can be? Most good girls aren't interested in dating for more than 2-3 years - they want you to propose and make no secret about it. Not that I am particularly interested in that either, but for different reasons. hahaha! But you know what I mean. Let's says you've found a girl that you are actually happy with but you don't believe in marriage. This is the situation I am currently in. I just don't like it. It ties me down plus all your points are pretty good. Before reading your article, I read this page that got me thinking.
https://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/things-i-learned-at-starbucks-1/
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 02, 2010 at 12:24 PM
btw, some good buddies of mine are very into the whole PUA routine. These guys are highly intelligent and successful and come from a variety of backgrounds. They got into the PUA routine just a few months ago and it has worked wonders for them. Before, they would go to a bar and talk to each other like everyone else. Now they are "opening sets" left, right and center. By the end of the night, they have either picked up, gone over to the girl's place or at the very least scored a bunch of numbers for later. Not bad seeing as how they didn't really get much action prior to this new game. And the best part is they view it all as a tree algorithm. You should hear the crazy stuff that comes out of these guys' mouths. Sometimes they get a negative response, but all they want is a response and to be remembered, possibly more.
It does take time and immense reading to become good at being a PUA. I don't really have the time to do what they're doing but am naturally quite good at it. Any good resources you know that I can pass to them. They have "The Game" and other books that I can't readily recall.
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 02, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Sorry about your penis.
Posted by: c64glen | September 02, 2010 at 01:20 PM
I don't understand. My penis? What about it?
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 02, 2010 at 03:05 PM
Peter, The Futurist, and other readers...
I notice you are an alpha who's got game. But there's lots of risks, such as false rape, pregnancy, diseases and shaming you into marriage. Did Caroline come across as a feminist?
There's lots of reasons women falsely accuse men of rape. I read one guy's story where she wanted to be paid for sex and he refused to. She simply blew the rape whistle and got him 5 years in prison and ruined his life. Slut or prostitute, there's little difference except a slut gets around the law by being indirect about wanting to be paid for sex.
A woman could trap a man into pregnancy and he's stuck paying child support. She could cockold him if he can't get her pregnant. She will then hope he doesn't ask for a paternity test on time or at all. If he's married, he has no recourse, he's simply stuck.
You say you "probably" won't marry, but don't underestimate the power of shaming language as well as her pussy. Only 25% of men have been successful with their marriage stike, 75% of men eventually marry and we know that marriage 2.0 is a good deal only for women. If you insist on marrying, expat to a male friendly country and marry there.
I am a MGTOW and strongly feel this is far better than game in the fight against feminism. You(and many men) spend 10s to 100s of thousands on women over your lifetime, mostly for sex. Some men think they can "buy" her love by being a white knight and supporting his princess. Stop handing out money to women, this feeds feminism!
Going my own way, all my hard earned money is mine to spend as I please. If more men did this, feminism will be seen as unprofitable and fall faster. Im very lucky that I don't need sex, but for those that do, hold out for VR of 2020. Actually, ill be buying VR myself for other reasons just as I use my computer for other reasons than porn. Men have invented all this and youll be putting money in the hands of men.
I want a normal, traditional relationship with a woman, but im smart enough to know this is impossible in America. Ive taken the red pill and have woken up to the truth that only 1% of women are decent ladies. You never know if your woman is a lady or just pretends to be one to get you to marry her. Every guy would like to think his girl is a lady, most learn the hard way they have been duped. Virtual reality(2020) and robogirls(2030) will solve all problems and be a trillion dollar market.
The Futurist, I love your blog and predictions. Ive shown your blog to a bunch of men and discuss your four horsemen on MRA forums. The VR/robogirls is my favoriate and will make the biggest impact.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 02, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Okay, I've read the article and am going to post some opinions below. Hopefully, they're chronological in regards to the piece, but they may not all be. This is a long article, after all.
Quote: Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'.
Wrong supposition. Deciding that it was more preferable to the alternative does not by a long shot equal "clearly didn't mind". It's obviously a matter of offspring survival. It has nothing to do with *personal* preference!
Quote: Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children
Meaning that the children are not harmed when men break the commitment? Erroneous conclusion!
Quote: A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman
Neither does a woman refusing to marry harm innocent minors. We're not talking marriage, here. We're talking children. Men leaving relationships with children, whether married or unmarried, definitely have an impact on those children!
Quote: In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives
Wait... didn't you just say that women were polyamorous, easily adjusting from one alpha male to the next? And that this actually worked to the best benefit of society at the time?
Quote: People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships
You've put this as a link, yet there's no direct quote to support that anywhere. Can you actually tell which 34-year old women have had more than 10 sexual encounters from her looks? I don't think so. Also, where's the evidence that a woman in her 20s who's given birth to at least three children is still physically trim? You're really riding on wishful thinking, here! Bearing children changes the body. As does hard work. If 20s women are fit after carrying three children to term, it means she's also done A LOT of hard physical labour (or working out at the gym, 20th century type). Not to mention that actual body structure has changed due to hormones etc. in food. Being a woman, I've looked more into the changes to women's bodies, but increased height, waistline, earlier puberty, larger feet are all results of toxins and hormones in our daily foods. The classical '50s housewife hourglass figure doesn't really exist anymore, as much because it simply isn't possible - not because of marrying later.
Quote: the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man.
Or - as tradition decrees - the father of the *bride* pays. It's also called dowry, which in reality has been practised for thousands of years.
Quote: c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
So... beauty really is just skin deep then, for you? Nothing to do with aging, like fine wine, tempering, tolerating, learning, being educated? All I can say is, that if that's the case, you deserve what you get.
Quote: For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona.
This is true! But the same is true for women. Why else are men attracted to women, who are 'hard to get' as opposed to those, who're willing to do the deed on the first date - which will often be considered as 'cheap'.
OK. This is obviously going to be a looong post, to rival the original. I'm a woman, though not full-blood American. In Denmark, these discussions have been going on for years and have perhaps, but not necessarily, progressed beyond the base level of this thread and US laws. Obviously, I'm going to list my objections first and foremost. I agree with many things said here, such as that single fathers should have equal rights and be given equal respect as single mothers, that violence by women to men is an overlooked problem, that many women are obsessed with the plain idea of equality etc., that the girl who cried 'rape' is becoming way too common and that this should be punished harshly, etc.
But still... at this point I need to have a beer! There're so many good thoughts behind many of the arguments, and yet the author ends up opposing himself as I've tried to illustrate with my quotes. And the story goes on ...
Quote: Women are largely unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores.
Makes perfect sense to me. But I prefer to believe that those of us with an actual mind and something other than a straight body to offer will still rank higher. Delusion? Maybe - if you're looking for other than straight breeding. Honestly, your own article states that the male biology needs to scatter his seeds. How do you think that's going to happen with virtual sex? Will the men adapt? Or will they instead turn to beta females, as it were. Those of us with natural boobs that tend to sag as time goes by, etc. but who still have the power of mind to engage the imagination of the man?
Bring on the computers. I, for one, ain't scared. And I'm a (somewhat) single female of 35, still wanting children, and not wanting to be a single mom, but on the other other hand not wanting to settle. Having grown up with parents who never touched each other lovingly, I'd much rather be the healthy (by)product of a single woman. Sorry!
Quote: Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.
With this quote you demean both men and women. Women, for suggesting that true love is an act - and men, for suggesting that they'd fall for that act!
Quote: Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped.
Again, this is (fortunately) different in Denmark. Many, many cases of alleged (and false) rapes are proven to be false by police or by actual admission of the so-called 'victim' - who then gets a jail penalty. Yes. And it should be no less, for defaming and possibly naming someone a rapist. It needs to carry a dire consequence! Here, I'm in total agreement! Unfortunately, the trend to cry 'rape' is on the increase. I am shamed on behalf of my fellow women out there!
Quote: Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust.
I know men are a different species. But honestly: It takes a whole lot more guts to be vulnerable and accept possible defeat than it does to be the agressor. Asking for help is NOT a shame. Not having the guts to ask for help IS!
Quote: Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year.
Errr... if he lives at home, with his MOM, then yes. Even if he's on his own, with no co-dependencies, that's not true.
Quote: while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations.
Traditional doesn't equal satisfactional - for either part. Grow to live beyond traditions and expectations. Create you own!
Quote: and the alphas with Venusian Arts competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
Enjoy? Really? Do you degrade your own sex so much that you think that virtual satisfaction is all you're going to need to feel happy? What happened to Darwin, and the urge to reproduce - an idea that you really forwarded earlier in this thread. That urge is obviously never going to set in with virtual sex. So what you're basically saying is that Alpha males will subside into mushrooms, like a poem by Sylvia Plath. Here, we're talking non-rational (thank God, or whomever), or rational and stripped of faith.
Quote: 'Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.'
According to your own figure, not quite. If you have two children as a woman while in your 20's, it's highly unlikely that you'll automatically be a double grandma when you're in your 40s. 50s would seem more likely.
Quote: No woman feels attraction for a needy man.
But this goes both ways. Men aren't attracted to needy women, either. When you distinguish between alpha and beta males, don't forget that not all women belong to the same category, either. So rather than trying to use this as a nail to hammer home your point about women, it's actually true for most people. People, who are attracted to needy people, are people, who are themselves insecure, regardless of gender.
Quote: The poor surrogate mother in India earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved
So you think it's entirely without personal cost for a woman to be a surrogate mom, to play host to a stranger's sperm and give birth to his child - and then give it up? Really? Some things cannot be measured in dollars - or rupees, for that matter.
Quote: if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
I agree that women should shoulder their part of the "dirty jobs". But claiming that 50% of all imprisonments should be of women would need 50% of imprisonment crimes being committed by women - and this isn't the case currently. Or are you willing to put innocent women behind bars in the name of equality?
I don't consider myself a feminist. I do respect the differences between the sexes and agree that these are important. On the other hand, I absolutely fail to see why that should prevent me from having a career and what I see as a fulfilling life away from home.
...
Okay - very interesting post, all in all. Quite rabid. Many erronerous conclusions. We're all entitled to an opinion. I agree that misunderstood 'feminism' is destructive, but I don't believe that a return to women being stay-at-home mothers being the answer, either. There's got to be a way that will let men be men and women be women without compromising the idea of a fulfilling career for both. Maybe we can start by asking for help from the opposite sex when we need it, instead of pretending that we can do everything by ourselves?
Posted by: Kathrina Martinsen | September 02, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Kathrina Martinsen,
Your 'objections' completely ignore the supporting evidence provided in the article (which is itself a form of opposition that I thoroughly predicted and pre-empted).
Let's correct your errors, shall we?
Wrong supposition.
It is a correct supposition, that is validated by science and seen in the dating market all the time. Next.
Meaning that the children are not harmed when men break the commitment? Erroneous conclusion!
As stated in the artice, women initiate 90% of divorces. Women are nowadays openly saying that their 'husband no longer adds value', so they ditch him but still feel entitled to his money. Your mask has slipped already.
Men leaving relationships with children, whether married or unmarried, definitely have an impact on those children!
Again, it is women who do this 90% of the time, usually for financial gain. The 'deadbeat dad' myth is a feminist fiction to distract from the wrongdoings of feminists.
If 20s women are fit after carrying three children to term, it means she's also done A LOT of hard physical labour
Nope, it was the result of normal labor and a normal diet. This is why outside of the US, women usually aren't fat even after having children.
So... beauty really is just skin deep then, for you? Nothing to do with aging,
You clearly know nothing about what men are attracted to. Physical beauty of a woman does matter, as is painfully obvious in any observation of the dating market.
Why else are men attracted to women, who are 'hard to get' as opposed to those, who're willing to do the deed on the first date -
Completely false. You are stuck in the characteristic female solipism. Men like agreeable women, not 'hard to get' women.
Men aren't attracted to needy women, either.
False. You are completely unqualified to discuss what men are attracted to, as you are projecting female biases outward.
And I'm a (somewhat) single female of 35, still wanting children, and not wanting to be a single mom, but on the other other hand not wanting to settle.
Doesn't that say it all. Feminism has robbed you by feeding you a pack of lies. A woman of 35 is far, far less desirable to men than a woman of 27. There is no way around that fact.
to play host to a stranger's sperm and give birth to his child - and then give it up? Really? Some things cannot be measured in dollars - or rupees, for that matter.
They do it willingly, knowing that they earn more than they culd in 10 years of their other work (usually hard labor). Only lefty feminist types oppose this sort of surrogacy, for obvious reasons.
Or are you willing to put innocent women behind bars in the name of equality?
Bogus strawman, and completely misses the point. Women have no business repeating the tired old lie of 'being underpaid' for the clear reasons mentioned.
Quite rabid. Many erronerous conclusions.
Actually, it is quite fair. It is feminists who are so rabid that the cannot engage in anything other than projection (as explained in the article).
I agree that misunderstood 'feminism' is destructive,
Good. So do something to fight it
There's got to be a way that will let men be men and women be women without compromising the idea of a fulfilling career for both.
Remove government meddling, and both genders would be happier in gender-normative roles.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 03, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Most of what I've read seems fairly reasonable. However I'm having some issues deciding how I should proceed from here.
Background: I'm 19, male, an engineering student at a respectable school. I look good and I'm in shape. I have always had trouble interacting with women, screwing up multiple dates. And I'm still a virgin. So I looked into Game ("Venusian Arts").
I'm not going to deny its effectiveness, as some of the better sources out there leverage real psychological principles, but I do have problems with it, mainly the logistics and some of the underlying assumptions. Someone commented that Game doesn't stop any of the problems associated with the article, mainly unaccountability for knee-jerk decisions and living life "in the moment". From what I've seen out in "the field", this is exactly true.
So then Game seems to only have short-term benefits to men looking to get laid (i.e me) but in the long-term it doesn't solve the problems for people who care (like me). To be honest I've been giving up with Game recently mostly because the whole process just sucks. I don't like drinking alcohol. I don't like dancing to loud shitty music mixed by a DJ. And I certainly don't like mind-numbing conversations with intoxicated morons. But at the same time... I want to be having a lot of sex!
Worse yet, there's so much negative stigma associated with being a male virgin. Even though I know it's not that big of a deal (or at least shouldn't be), I end up feeling bad because of all the conditioning around me. I know others in my position that as a result feel inferior to women - the system at work, I figure.
Prostitution isn't an option for me. I don't think any less of the guys who do it though, that's their choice. I don't have the resources to make it happen. Also, the whole idea seems too inauthentic to me, since she's not there because she wants to be.
What it really comes down to, for me, is this: how do I become an alpha-male while still standing up for a principles that I believe in (e.g. accountability for one's actions, others in this article)? I can't think of anywhere else to ask.
Is it even possible to become alpha? I started off with a rather crappy childhood: parents getting divorced, women mistreating me, etc. Some girls made a betting game out of getting me to go out with them, I felt so betrayed that I didn't talk to another girl for 3 years. But now I've done some work to get passed those issues, I'm realizing my potential in college, and I'm getting physically fit as well.
I just want to make sure that I get on the right path as I enter adulthood.
Posted by: MC | September 03, 2010 at 02:03 PM
MC, please see my reply to Peter. Youll want to hold off on getting laid till virtual reality of 2020. Please ignore the shaming language, they are the losers, not us virgins. Yes im a virgin and proud, my life is better for it. No worries of STDs, false rape, pregnancy, harm, etc that befalls others.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 03, 2010 at 07:36 PM
MC,
The solution for you is to learn Game, and do the hard work to learn it well.
Don't worry about false rape accusations. Game will teach you how to avoid women likely to do that. Plus, false accusations are usually not filed by more attractive women, as they have no need for the attention-getting tactic that false accusations are. Game is the only way you will be able to get the hotter women.
So then Game seems to only have short-term benefits to men looking to get laid (i.e me) but in the long-term it doesn't solve the problems for people who care (like me).
Absolutely false. The article itself has links to how to use Game for long-term relationships. You still have a very incomplete understanding of Game.
Avoiding women altogether is no way to live your life, even more so if you are only 19. MGTOW is not a good choice, certainly not for a man your age. Ignore any such advice.
What it really comes down to, for me, is this: how do I become an alpha-male while still standing up for a principles that I believe in (e.g. accountability for one's actions, others in this article)?
Why do you think Game is incompatible with this? It is not.
I just want to make sure that I get on the right path as I enter adulthood.
Learn GAME. Go to Roissy's and ask lots of questions to the other commenters.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 03, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Savethemales,
I am a MGTOW and strongly feel this is far better than game in the fight against feminism. You(and many men) spend 10s to 100s of thousands on women over your lifetime, mostly for sex.
This sentence tells me you still have no idea what Game is. A man with Game does not spend money against his will.
Game is a major way to fight feminism, and to bring happiness to men AND to women. MGTOW will never appeal to a broad range of men, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 03, 2010 at 10:25 PM
"Don't worry about false rape accusations. Game will teach you how to avoid women likely to do that."
Reduce the risks, yes, but not eliminate them. Any woman can file false rape, even her friends could file them on her behalf and you are guilty till proven innocent.
"Avoiding women altogether is no way to live your life, even more so if you are only 19. MGTOW is not a good choice, certainly not for a man your age. Ignore any such advice."
Ive read your other posts, including the one on "Actuarial Escape Velocity" and believe in this. There will be thousands of years to enjoy life with all kinds of amazing technology, including virtual reality that feels as real as reality. In 2020, we will all get the chance to be with hot virtual women.
It's his choice if he wants to risk relationships with women in today's matriarchy. I have chosen to go my own way and so have many other men that I talk to. There's so many things to enjoy in life that doesn't center around women and sex. We will all get our chance with VR and robogirl tech anyway.
"This sentence tells me you still have no idea what Game is. A man with Game does not spend money against his will."
What if he doesn't want to spend at all or split the expenses 50-50? I understand that spending thousands on a woman is a huge waste and that marriage is a huge mistake for men.
"Game is a major way to fight feminism, and to bring happiness to men AND to women."
I don't understand how game fights feminism, but I understand it lets men have women at his risk because the laws are designed to screw over men. Use game in a male-friendly country or only after feminism has fallen.
I can fully understand how VR technologies(2020) and robogirls(2030) will bring happiness to millions of men, betas in particular. That horseman alone may be responsible for the downfall of feminism. There's much discussion on this in blogs and other forums.
"MGTOW will never appeal to a broad range of men, for obvious reasons."
Men going their own way is a self preservation movement, designed to protect us from the oppression of the matriarchy. I do want to be with women, but it's not safe to do so and ive seen countless men have their lives ruined by feminism, even those with game. Women have game too and will try to trap you by getting pregnant(even if they have to cockold you) or marrying you(common law marriage in some states and countries applies). I know an alpha man who's been married and divorced 3 times. He still has game, but all those women add up hugely in cost.
We see MGTOW as a temporary thing(10 year wait) till we can be with virtual girls then with robogirls. No game required and you can have all the virtual girls you want and they will look better than the vast majority of real women without the risks of STDs, false rape, pregnancy, injuries, etc. I would not be surprised if most betas and some alphas turn to VR then to robogirls(but still using ever evolving VR)
No one knows when feminism will fall, ive asked this question here and on men's rights blogs. I understand your predictions and agree there's a good chance feminism will fall by 2020 but who knows what the government will do to prop up feminism. It could take decades for feminism to slowly unwind from the system.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 04, 2010 at 08:30 PM
Hi MC,
I am also an engineer but a few years older than you. The game hasn't changed much at all and the same rules apply. Savethemales recommends staying celibate, but that’s simply not an option for me and most other guys. I would go nuts and start banging sheep.
It’s good that you got a glimpse into the PUA life. As an engineering student, you simply will not have the time to delve fully into the Game. There is just no way especially if you’re in a demanding engg field such as comp or elec. The PUA game is not a solution for your life goals nor is it a key to happiness or love. It simply gives you options as a man. Attractive women have these presented to them on a platter. Even the dumbest grade 9 girl who can’t multiply to save her life knows that every guy in the school wants to bang her. Later in life (assuming she stays attractive), she uses this to get what SHE wants in life. Most of the time, she uses men to fulfill her goals.
We men prefer to work hard and achieve what we have in life. But when you’re still young and in your 20’s, you aren’t financially well off enough to use it to attract women. You need some game. Thankfully, the PUA routine works for a broad range of guys, attractive or not. You do not need to fall in love with every one of these chicks you score with, but you have the option of choosing which girl you like and then using the PUA on her until you have her. And then, if you change your mind, you can drop her for another. It just opens a lot of options with women that you wouldn’t have otherwise had. Why do you think so many guys get trapped into marriage?! One of the reasons is because they feel that they might not get another half-decent looking girl. They are not confident in their own skills and this makes them afraid of letting go of their girl, no matter how much of a bitch she might be or how ugly she might be.
Even if you get a hot and nice girl, there is a saying that for the 1st year of marriage, put a penny in a jar for every time you have sex. After the first year, remove a penny for every time you have sex. Most of the time, you will never end up emptying the jar.
The above saying holds true because both you and your girl (whether married or not) get less interested in banging each other as time goes by. But her options decrease as she gets older and yours increase. So it makes sense for you to look for a younger, hotter, nicer model unless she is absolutely amazing in every way imaginable and doesn’t even age. So getting married just serves to lock into a really bad contract on penalty of losing half of what you have and paying for her kids. And make no mistake about it, those are HER kids and not yours.
Savethemales, take a look at the Mystery method and watch some of his videos. Mystery went to school in my city and his game is played widely across the city. It works wonders and puts a lot of power back into the hands of the men who can use it. I have seen it work first hand with my buddies who are some of the most docile and beta males who I never dreamed who get the women that they get. Sometimes, they give me good competition – something that I quite enjoy. The chase, for me, is better than the spoils any day.
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 05, 2010 at 02:09 PM
oh, and another quick thing.
Women 35 and over are considered elderly in clinical practice. Ask any doctor. Or google it:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/elderly+primigravida
Your odds of having a baby with Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) are:
Women under age 23—1 in 2,000 births
Women at age 35—1 in 400 births
Women at age 40—1 in 90 births
Women at age 45—1 in 32 births
Women at age 50—1 in 8 births
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T107400.asp
So your worth in childbearing is pretty bad. And I love it how feminists have started to try and push their agenda by asserting that the quality of sperm deteriorate with age. Amazing what garbage comes out of their mouths.
Posted by: Peter Feller | September 05, 2010 at 02:20 PM
The decline of our economy and civilization is caused directly by feminism.
Marriage is the foundation of civilization. Before it, humans organized as castes.
A few (approx 20%) men mated with most (approx 80%) women. The other men lived on the margins of society (the caste).
Labor of the few men who mated was not great enough to advance civilization.
Maintaining power and control over the population (women and men) required dishonest and nefarious means, including violence, manipulation, lying, etc... all their time and effort was invested in mating and precluding other men from mating opportunities and the benefits of a "family".
Marriage and the laws associated with it were invented about 4,000 years ago to harness labor of all these other men and to improve quality of life and competition with other less "civilized" or evolved societies (that still existed as castes).
Once marriage was invented and most men were compensated for their labor with a family and children, civilization advanced.
Without marriage and any laws to enforce it, women have turned civilization on its head - we are now devolving.
Approx two-thirds of all adult men in the US during the past forty years have been married, and more than half of them are victims of unilateral, and more frequently than not, malicious divorce.
Without any laws anymore to enforce a marriage contract, more than half of couples have divorced during the past forty years, and women initiate it in more than 80% of instances (the other less than 20% is either mutual or initiated by the man - so, as you can see, the frequency with which women initiate divorce is greater than that of men by a multiple of around eight).
In almost all instances, women get custody of children and men are ordered to pay child-support in great excess of what they can afford - States order excessive child support because it receives approx fifty cents in federal subsidies for every dollar it transfers from fathers to mothers.
Since marriage is no longer a benefit to a majority of men for advancing and maintaining civilization, a majority of men are being forced into slavery to advance it. This slavery is enforced by threat of imprisonment for inability to pay child-support, suspension of passports and driver licenses, and suspension of business licenses and credit.
In response to this development, men have invested in a huge criminal subculture that does not support civilization, but still allows men to exist on the margins of society the way they did before invention of marriage more than 4,000 years ago.
In addition to investing in a huge criminal subculture to support themselves in the absence of any benefits of a civilization while they are forced to live in a caste, men are refusing to attend college and work because there are no longer any advantages to either.
At the same time, women are being encouraged to work. But since they do not possess the independent thought or intellectual capacity to make enough important contributions for advancing civilization, the ruling class continues to enslave men.
We continue to devolve into the same caste system that existed before 4,000 years ago. I guess people weren't happy with civilization. Maybe a reminder of the way things were will encourage reinstitution of marriage and the laws for enforcing the contract.
Adultery and paternity fraud and lies that women tell must be punished to the extremes. There must be no compensation and certainly no reward for a woman leaving a marriage. She will get no custody and child-support. Since there has never ever been in human history the kind of epidemic domestic violence that feminists broadcast propaganda and lies about today, it's nothing we need to worry about. And if it is, then there are already laws and courts to deal with that real and rare criminal behavior - of both men AND women. Rape also is a very rare crime and always has been. Far less common than adultery and paternity fraud.
Posted by: no country for old men | September 07, 2010 at 03:16 AM
A nice article.
Feminism does seem outdated, while many feminists just want to promote equal rights others use it as a soapbox for unrelated occasionally sexist ideals.
An equal rights movement seems like it'd achieve a whole lot more.
Posted by: Mark | September 08, 2010 at 08:35 PM
Here's a guy who revels in a culture in which it was common practice to consider the surviving wife of a deceased man as an extra piece of kindling for his funeral pyre.
Here's another male who objectifies women as succubus. Completely unwilling to accept women as peers. Fearful that is if "feminism" is left unchecked, vagina-aliens will soon be seeking out hairy ballsacks to string into necklaces. Fearful of emasculation yet the first thing he should do is grow a pair.
Seemingly, the author has little confidence in his own masculinity, resigning his hapless beta self to a virtual reality of porno and fapdom lest we start lobotomizing women to fit his needs. Seriously, maybe we should and this guy could just STFU.
Posted by: Fido | September 09, 2010 at 05:44 AM
Fido (a dog's name, appropriately),
Your comment is both racist, and historically ignorant.
Nothing in the article indicates any of your screeching, which means your accusations are projection (which the article also preemptively predicts).
You need to work on correcting your projection, and your extreme anti-male bigotry (as well as your reading comprehension). It will be hard work for you to correct your flaws.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 09, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Hi Futurist,
Please see my September 4 reply above to you(regarding false rape, game and MGTOW). As for India, it makes me sad to alert you that feminism is rapidly growing there(Google this). I was thinking of expating from America, but there may be no point going from one matriarchy to another (growing) matriarchy.
While I agree that feminism will begin it's downfall by 2020, I am not optimistic the misandry bubble will pop, but it may deflate slowly over several decades. Feminism/misandry is too ingrained in the minds of many women and some manginas. Many other men besides me are seeing VR/sexbots/robogirls as the best and safest means of being with women in the future.
How many times have you edited your long article since you posted it earlier this year? I agree with about 90% of it and have shown dozens of others your article. An update/revision that explains the venusian arts in detail would inform us readers. We also don't understand why you consider it a horseman, there's no explanation. I concur that game works and can get you women, it's your choice and risk. Id still much rather go my way(millions of men have done this successfully) and wait for VR and robogirls because it's much safer plus alot of us men are simply disgusted at the lack of morals/respect women have. The alpha men can have all the human women they want, we aren't interested. Us beta men will get all the 10/10+(looks, personality and brains) virtual and robotic women we want and can afford.
http://antimisandry.com/abuse-dv/indian-wife-abuses-husband-son-witnesses-indiatv-25377.html
Indian Wife Abuses Husband, Son Witnesses - on IndiaTV
Purushottam Mahajan was physically and mentally abused by his wife, he has videotapes of about 60 days of abuse, many men do not even have this evidence, some of them suicide!. The Police has not yet taken action on Purushottam's complaint against spousal-abuse, even after 2 years of his complaint to various police and other authorities.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Savethemales,
One small anecdote about India is nowhere near saying things like alimony and no-fault divorce are imminent there. They are not, and it is absurd to believe they are, in a country with under 10% divorce rate, and women marry as virgins.
Venusian Arts : There are links in the article that explain the basics, in the article already.
MGTOW is not a path many men would be happy with, surely you recognize this. It is certainly is not the right thing to advise a 20-year-old boy.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 12, 2010 at 01:55 PM
Come on guys. The bot thing is taking things a bit too far, don't you think? I, for one, love women - their smell, shape, softness and even their messed up emotional minds. There is no way that a bot can do it for men. You will essentially have to ignore the fact that you are with an inanimate object. And doing something like that over time will render you almost useless in the social arena since you will soon lose all your social skills. Not to mention that we have NO idea when or if technology will get to the point of such reality.
PUA game is a much better option and it is here now. Brilliant guys have come up with ways to improve men's self confidence transforming them into unbeatable players. Forums and boards have made it possible to learn from our mistakes with women and evolve. Trusting women is for a bad gambler. For the rest of us, we should build up our PUA game to the max and use it to get scores of women, build confidence and basically be the man.
I am very new to the game, but on my first night, I opened countless sets at a nightclub (which I used to despise) and even got a girl to go home with me. All this with basic lines and some in-built charm, I guess. Imagine what a few months of training and practice can do!
Posted by: cheetah | September 13, 2010 at 04:08 PM
cheetah,
I fully agree. See what I have been writing in response to 'savethemales'.
Bots are not happening anytime soon, and won't be very appealing.
3D/VR is a supplemental experience (much like strip clubs today), and helps correct the inflated power level that women in the 6-8 range presently enjoy, but is not meant to be a fully satisfying substitute.
Game is a must for a happy life, for sure. The MGTOW option is not going to bring happiness for most men (and would not be popular with them, to say the least).
Keep practicing. Do at least 20 approaches a week. Do both daytime and nighttime approaches, and compare the dynamics between the two. But never stop.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 13, 2010 at 04:37 PM
What I really love about the game is that when viewed from the standpoint of a social experiment, I really dont give a rats ass about how many times I get rejected. It's quick and painless. In fact, the same girl who rejected me last night ate all my shit up tonight. So that goes to show you that as long as your confidence and skills get better, there's really no woman out of reach. Heck, I might even go for my ex's sister later just to have some fun. Ok, maybe that's not the best idea.
Now when you say approaches, do you mean approach a single girl or open a group of people? Or does it even matter. I find that I am better with approaching two girls alone. Also, I find that I tend to use the exact same opener and follow-ups through the night. Kinda dangerous, I know. But my biggest problem, by far, is that I tend to need to drink in order to be loose enough to start approaching and throwing game. Any advice would be helpful.
Posted by: cheetah | September 13, 2010 at 08:50 PM
cheetah,
Count each 'target' as one approach, but in a group, if you have to get past the guy/ug to talk to the girl first, that still just counts as one total.
But the fact that you are approaching is wonderful. Far too many guys have an intellectual understanding of Game, but just can't do approaches. A man has to do a *lot* of approaches (20 a week) to really get the full benefit. Much like a bicycle not being able to move unless a certain minimum speed is sustained.
It is OK to be limited to just 2-3 good openers. The opener is the least impactful part of the pickup. If you are still talking to a woman after 30 seconds, the opener is in the past, no longer of consequence.
Going after your ex's sister for practice is perfectly fine, after you are at a higher skill level (by which time more time has elapsed). Particularly if she is the YOUNGER sister...
Drinking, however, should not be a dependency. You should practice on being equally competent in daygame, as night game.
Go read approachanxiety.com, rooshv.com, askjdog.com, etc.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM
The Futurist, I have alot to say and will back up my arguments/debates with facts and links. I have read your older posts and commented on some of those as well.
1. You are a huge fan of game/PUA. This person believes foreign women are the way to go and explains why PUA doesn't work. http://www.happierabroad.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6811
2. A Google search shows that MGTOW is popular and gaining momentum. One guy said: Guys, I say this with complete respect, it is clear that most of you posting here still don’t get it. A man who GOES HIS OWN WAY doesn’t give a damn about what women think of him; women do not define his masculinity, he defines himself. He is no longer interested in the games women play nor in how to win at them. His energy he spent on being the master and beneficiary of his own life. You do not need womens approval to find meaning. That’s the message of MGTOW!
Another guy said: Today, we’re bombarded by propaganda that says “if you can’t get a girl, you’re not worth the gum that sticks to your shoes”. BS I and lots of others say. I have peace, quiet, and freedom as a child-free bachelor. I’d rather die alone than jump through hoops to get women!
If you can't go your own way, consider expating to a patriarchy(that won't become a matriarchy) and dating foreign women.
3. What are your predictions on other patriarchies becomming matriarchies due to feminism? I don't yet know if ill expat from matriarchy America, but I sure as heck don't want to be in another country that will only turn into a matriarchy!
4. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-turing-test.htm
Ray Kurzweil, a famous futurist predicts computers/robots to pass a turing test by 2029. There's a 10k bet on that. Im sure you are familiar on his other predictions(VR, AEV, computers, AI, nanotech, etc)
This is where I base my robogirl in 2030 prediction from. Once a robogirl passes the turing test(look/act human), the uncanny valley(no longer looks fake), becomes affordable($30k max cost)
and has been tested to be safe and reliable, it will be immensely popular.
Of course VR will come first, no argument there, but robogirls is the next logical evolution. Robogirls will be a "10" in looks, brains, personality, etc and be able to do almost anything you want it to do. Your only argument is that human women can love where robots can't. If a woman loves a man, it's conditional love and she won't hesitant to leave him if he can't meet her demands/entitlements. A robogirl will never leave you and can simulate love better than the majority of women can fake love. Here's a man's experience on love:
http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/2008/09/and-horse-she-rode-in-on.html
Captain Zarmband said...
This should not be a surprise. Women still regard marriage, and for that matter any relationship with a man, as being all about money. They'll never admit it of course, but for proof you need only look at their behaviour during and after a divorce. All their actions and words are focussed around the idea that "I'm owed" as if demanding some form of compensation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - a woman is totally incapable of falling in love with a man, she simply falls in love with the lifestyle the man can provide for her. All women's relationships with men revolve around this principle.
5. I feel bad for any man in relationships with women if they live in a matriarchal country(such as America, Canada and UK) where women rule the country and the laws are tailored to them. Lots of men have their lives ruined by false allegations. I am not gonna stop men from taking that risk, but they still must be informed. I have gone my way because I find the risks unacceptable. I don't want to be with a feminist or a slut, but a decent lady and there's so few of them.
-------------------------------
cheetah,
The bot thing is taking things a bit too far, don't you think?
It will give men options and fight feminism. Read my previous posts, I said plenty on robogirls.
I, for one, love women - their smell, shape, softness and even their messed up emotional minds.
I require a decent lady who's emotionally stable. What works for you does not work for many other men, including me.
There is no way that a bot can do it for men. You will essentially have to ignore the fact that you are with an inanimate object.
There won't be much ignoring to do when your bot is indistinguishable from a human woman once we pass the uncanny valley and the turing test.
Doing something like that over time will render you almost useless in the social arena since you will soon lose all your social skills.
Enjoying VR and robogirls does not need preclude a human from interacting with other humans.
We have NO idea when or if technology will get to the point of such reality.
There are no IFs about it, only a question of when. The futurist predicts 2020 for VR girls. I predict 2030 for robogirls. This prediction is contingent on Moore's law holding true, but Moore himself sees his law dying in 10-20 years.
http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/3477/moores-law-is-dead-says-gordon-moore/
PUA game is a much better option and it is here now. Brilliant guys have come up with ways to improve men's self confidence transforming them into unbeatable players. Forums and boards have made it possible to learn from our mistakes with women and evolve.
Can PUA guarantee me a decent lady with morals and respect for herself who will never, ever file false allegations against me?
Trusting women is for a bad gambler.
I agree there, and is why im staying single.
we should build up our PUA game to the max and use it to get scores of women, build confidence and basically be the man.
I don't need "scores of women" to prove im a man. I have confidence and happiness without women. My reason for wanting a woman is for the romance and companionship. Unfortunately, this can't be done safely in a matriarchy. I read and post on men's rights forums and blogs and have seen how feminism oppresses men. Lots of men have gone their way and are now waiting for virtual reality and robogirls. They will get to be with "perfect 10" women without the risks.
I will wish you good luck on your game and hope it makes you happy and hope you don't get in legal trouble or waste money. I could never be an alpha as im a "nice guy" and will not pretend to be someone I am not. If women don't want me for me, then they are missing out on a nice guy. Im not bitter(their shaming language) about it because there's so much more to life than women and I know ill get my chance in 10 years with VR. 10 years is a drop in the bucket when my generation may live to the AEV and tech. singularity.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 15, 2010 at 04:54 AM
SavetheMales,
Two huge flaws in your comment are :
1) Assuming all Game is PUA, even though the article clearly describes otherwise.
2) Anyone who says Game does not work has clearly not tried it, and is too unwilling to admit that his results are in fact within his control. My article also states how 80% of men have no capacity to comprehend Game..
A Google search shows that MGTOW is popular and gaining momentum.
I doubt anyone else here or elsewhere will buy that. A movement of men who are actively disinterested in women? No chance of getting anywhere, except with men over 50..
Posted by: The Futurist | September 15, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Here in Australia, alimony to childless women doesn't seem to exist, we all love each other and leave each other on equal terms. Your women all sound like sociopaths, it really astounds me.
Posted by: Annhiro | September 16, 2010 at 07:55 PM
"Bleh" totally owns this thread. Game is a byproduct of radical feminism, as is gamers' grossly underdeveloped understanding of what being a real man has always been about in the West. Gamers are the wretched refuse of the earlier culture wars, the mutant children of decades of Marxism in the government schools, Hollywood, and Washington DC. And they are now, along with the whores they work on, part of the problem. What gamers needed was to grow up around real men and to have studied real history. Perhaps a few will break their masturbatory addiction and move on to normal family life and raise true men and women. Those who do will have a much better understanding of why western men have always been different from the barbarians in more than just physical attributes.
Posted by: Rusty | September 17, 2010 at 08:38 AM
wow someone told the truth on the internet, meaning the author in this case,forget the flak they all will pay sooner or later.
Posted by: james kroeker | September 17, 2010 at 09:59 AM
Rusty,
There are so many things wrong with your ignorant comment, that it could not be worse even if someone wanted to create satire.
You haven't the slightest clue what Game is, despite it being defined in clear red letters. The article clearly states that Game is useful even in monogamous relationships, but since that does not fit into your ignorant and envious narrative, you ignored it.
This means you are actually opposed to men working to make themselves more attractive to women. What type of 'man' opposes that?
You also are too afraid to hold women accountable. Game is merely a market response to what women have themselves become. That you slam men for adapting to reality shows your sycophantic pedestalization of women.
Your complete ignorance about women is also described in the article under the 'pedestalizer/socialcon' section.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 17, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Hey everyone been reading up on the coments here and all you have put forth good points and bad points.
As for myself I'm MGTOW all the way, I have always been a loner by nature so it's only natural that I would go MGTOW in the face of femanazism.
One thig you all seem to misunderstand is that while we men and young men are in the same boat concerning femanazisim we seem to forget that we are each indvigual men and not a herd of sheep like women and girls.
So for some MGTOW works, for others it's VR/Robogirls and for others it's Game.
So there is no one "SYSTEM " that is the right way, it's a matter of what works for you or what you think works for you, if you think game works for you and it works out for you then you have found what you need, if VR/Robogirls work for you then you have found what you need, if expating to a male friendly country and finding a nice FW works for then it works for you.
If something does not work you such as game, then try something new and keep trying new things untill you find what works for in your heart of hearts.
It's all about suirvival and survival means the same thing to men and young men and boys such as food and water, clothing a roof over your head and a stable income flow to aford those nasscties of life, beyond that survival takes on a doffrent mean for each man, young man and boy, see what I am saying.
For us men survival is not a one size fit all applacation like it is with women and girls, we each do what we must to not only survive in these dark times for men, young men and boys what we also do our best to help each other out once we have what we need to survive, Bro's Before Ho's
So find what you think works for you and go with it, if it does work out then sit back and enjoy life while helping your Bro's out and if it does not work out then change tactics and find what works for you and if your not sure as to what you think will work for you, talk to your Bro's and see what they have to say, but that does not mean you take everything a Bro tells you as the gosple truth like women and girls have done with femanazisim.
Men for the most part are resonable, loical beings so put your Manpower to work for you and listen to what your Bro's have to say and then use your brain to decied what you think will work for you and go for it, you will never know if something is going to work for you or not untill you try it, that's why men are better then women in the aspect that the majorty of men are risk takers who push back the edge of human ignroance by trying new things and reaping the rewards of experance good or bad where are women and girls for the most part like to pay it safe and think like a heard instead of the lone wolf who is the master of all her survays due to his strength(mental/pyhcal), his boldness and his integratve.
God bless you and your loved once in your trip through life and remeber Bro's Before Ho's, do be a sell out traitor like the femanazis/women's goverment pimps who sold out their brothers for a wife of pussy and more power and money.
Kargan3033
Posted by: Kargan3033 | September 18, 2010 at 01:58 PM
The Futurist,
I lived in India for more than half my life and now in a Western country. I have to wonder what you feel India offers that the US doesn't. To me, moving back permanently would not even be an option. The exploding population, widespread corruption and the level of air and water pollutants are unbearable. In addition, the culture in large cities is moving towards that of the west. Indians want to be more westernized and readily admit it. Granted, the divorce rates in India pale in comparison to the US, but surely this cannot be your only reason.
There was an article in the paper in which a couple from the UK were going to divorce but the husband was in Nigeria for an extended period of time. He filed for divorce in Nigeria and the divorce proceedings were carried out there. The UK courts had no choice but to accept the Nigerian court's decisions on splitting assets. The man won huge in this case since the system there is more fair and doesn't take the man to the cleaners. Do you have any idea about how a man (like myself) who might file for divorce in the future can do something similar - let's say in India instead of Nigeria?
I have approached several law firms but they say that they only file in the US and do not provide legal advice across international jurisdictions. Some have also told me that it would be unfair to file in India. We really need to put together a divorce procedure manual for men of Indian origin to be able to file for divorce in India and have Indian courts deal with it.
Posted by: cheetah | September 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM
cheetah,
Let me put it this way : India has changed a lot. As recently as 2006, if someone were to ask me about my chances of moving to India, I would have said a hard 0%. But today, I would say 25%. Go read my 'Culture of Success' article to see what I thought about India not too long ago.
Also, India's LT capital gains tax rate is zero, whereas in US states like CA and NY, it can be 30% or more.
Of course, if a man really wants to be a PUA, the US is better, places like Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Las Vegas in particular.
Some have also told me that it would be unfair to file in India.
Oh, so it is OK if it is unfair TO THE MAN, as US laws are. Disgusting whiteknights, they are. This incident alone should tell you how much misandry is accepted as normal.
My understanding is that the place where you lived in the last 6 months is where you have to file. This is why a family man is ultimately better off living in India.
NEVER get married without a pre-nup, no matter how much others pressure/shame you. Even if your own parents are against it, it is because they just don't know how the law works. A man can no more get married without a pre-nup as he can go around without health or auto insurance. NEVER get married without a pre-nup (which still does not guarantee safety, just increases your odds).
Posted by: The Futurist | September 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Kargan3033, thanks for your post and being a MGTOW. Youll survive just fine and in a decade, you can have all the virtual girls. :)
cheetah, see my long reply to you on September 15, 2010 at 04:54 AM. I also was surprised to find out you made the mistake of marriage and want out. Have you considered moving back to India?
GK, if game can help improve a loving, monogameous relationship or marriage, then im all for it. But if you are already single, id still advise men to stay that way and be free.
Even with a prenup, marriage is still a good deal for women. Of course she will try to shame you out of a prenup, perhaps even refuse to marry you. If she does marry, she will find a judge that will not honor your prenup as she divorces you. Worst case, she still gets your children and lots of child support, something no prenup can legally protect you from. Hence, never marry in a matriarchy!
Ok, so maybe MGTOW isn't popular for alpha men with game, but for the other 80% who can't/won't game, it'll save them alot of trouble and failed relationships and false allegations. Virtual girls is the way to go for them. As to replacing real women, it will for most betas because a virtual 10 beats a real 7 and also because their minds will become warped and average women will simply be ignored. Most men will become too jaded to believe in "love" as they found out themselves or thru their friends. I don't believe in love myself and don't believe the majority of women are capable of unconditional love. Hence, virtual love will be the option for most men.
You still maintain that robogirls won't ever become popular. I mention that robogirls will get to the point they can do everything and more vs. a human woman. There will be all kinds of safety elements. What if you get a stroke or heart attack? Then your robogirl can administer medicine while wirelessly dialing 911. Your robogirl can act as a guard to protect you from robothugs. Your robogirl can do all kinds of chores around the house and be programmed to love you unconditionally.
Even when virtual reality becomes "real" by 2040(kurzweil says 2030) thanks to nanobots, robogirls won't go away as they will still be needed in the real world. Virtual reality isn't just an outlet to get beautiful women, anything goes and the only limitation is your imagination. I believe human male-female relationships will be a thing of the past by then. Robots will have taken almost all our jobs and humans will have fun all day in their virtual utopia. This will continue towards the tech. singularity and past that.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 21, 2010 at 01:30 AM
Savethemales,
I am not married. No way will I be making that mistake. I was merely probing the possibility of international divorce as an alternative to the retarded divorce laws of the west.
Although, I would like to ask you guys about how you feel about being alone when you're older and most other guys around have wives and children. They are going out as couples on trips and you are still trying to pick up every chance you get. Sounds like a lot of work with not much time to just relax with someone you can be yourself around. This is the question that plagues me.
Posted by: cheetah | September 21, 2010 at 05:26 PM
What do you say? http://www.rooshv.com/the-future-of-game#comments
Posted by: ReaderLon | September 23, 2010 at 02:20 PM
cheetah, You had me worried there. I am not afraid of being alone because as I mentioned before, robogirls will be a reality by 2030 and trips will be done with virtual reality with virtual girls in 2020. Im not going to waste my time on picking up sluts, ive gone my way and will enjoy life single. America is a matriarchy and there's few ladies. Many married men get screwed over in the divorce and end lonely. See my long reply to you on September 15, 2010 at 04:54 AM, I made some good points.
ReaderLon, that blog forgot to include virtual reality(a horseman) and robogirls(I discuss this in my previous comments) I predict half the alpha men and almost all the beta men to be with VR girls by 2020. This is easier than game, takes far less effort and is much safer and gets you 10/10+ perfect women.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 24, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I was married to a woman who made and still makes a few million per month. I wasn't happy in that relationship and I did the ''honerable'' thing and through a long series of meansprited manipulations I now have hardly any visual contact with our daughter. I am reduced to a ''phone-dad'' I am writing a book about it and it is not pretty. By nature of their prolific breeding muslims in Europe and the US will soon indeed have Shira Law Courts and that will end it right there for all woman. Once and for all. Not a good forecast but one that will certainly put men back in total control....
If white woman stop breeding the muslims will and that is the end of what we now know to be ''democratic society''
And as far as these ''feminists''...I yet have to see one that is actually very attractive....that is why they turn to male-hate policies because no male will want to spend money on them...after all ''we'' men view beautiful woman to be better in giving us healtier babies (true to some extent) and will go for the best ''deal'' we can litteraly lay their hands on.
I am now married to a fitness model who is also a RN and gave me the most beautiful son I can ever ask for. I was a model actor and I saw what kids my co models were popping...indeed, very beautiful kids. That is the ONLY thing Hitler was right about: healthy and beautiful people will make better babies.
And as long as the upbringing is good our society will in fact become more attractive (look at Sweden-Holland-or Check republic). All I am saying is that fat-red-necks (the average American) shouldn't have kids (as if they would ever listen lol), what I mean is that if they stop eating the garbage and pick better looking, smarter breeding partners the kids would be better looking, healthier and treated far better. I my self know how it is to be considerd ''very handsome'' and I tell you how much better I get treated by woman and man alike than my ''regular joe'' friends. It is unfair but it all comes down to the LAW OF NATURE. My wife trains woman to change their diet and mental state and has them lose enormous amounts of fat longterm by replacing junk food and MSG laden garbage with organic. Gets them to work out with weights (the ONLY effective way fat will actually stay off) and ALL of these woman LOVE how man respond to them after wards... So, indeed, there is no secret here; The law of nature dictates what goes on on planet earth. Fighting it will only get you elected to the white House (Obama) or join a feminist club and be frustrated that all the pretty girls have all the fun...and try to change it and lose in the end.
Posted by: Paragonteam | September 25, 2010 at 09:18 AM
The Futurist,
This question was actually directed at you.
How do you feel about being alone when you're older and most other guys around have wives and children? They are going out as couples on trips and you are still trying to pick up every chance you get. Sounds like a lot of work with not much time to just relax with someone you can be yourself around.
I'm sure you must have thought about this since it is what we get if we stay away from marriage.
Posted by: cheetah | September 26, 2010 at 12:13 PM
cheetah,
Many flawed assumptions in your question. For starters :
1) Who says you can't go on a cruise with your girlfriend? Someone who does not have massive legal leverage over you?
2) Getting married now is far, far from a guarantee that you won't be alone in old age. So many Western old men are not just alone, but in poverty, due to alimony payments, etc. The woman leaves as his career earnings peak. She is gone, but he still has to pay. Retirements are delayed by 10 years or more due to alimony requirements.
So if in old age, your choices are to be alone and financially self-sufficient, or alone in poverty, which is better?
3) You seem to have missed the part in the article of single men now being able to get donor eggs + a surrogate in India for just $20,000. This path is not for everyone, but for a man who really wants to, this avenue does exist. Also, you can have a girlfriend, and even marry (with a pre-nup) later, but the kids are LEGALLY YOURS and YOURS ALONE.
Sounds like a lot of work with not much time to just relax with someone you can be yourself around.
You seem to think that Game cannot lead to relationships. Again, a very incomplete understanding of Game.
Spend time with a family more than 10 years into marriage. Notice the subtle nagging by the wife, as well as how hard the man works but how little thanks he gets. Also be brutally honest about whether the wife is still remotely attractive...
Many Indians seem to suffer from an unshakeable belief that a) sex only can happen within marriage, and b) that marriage is permanent. Even though you know better, your questions reveal the deep-seatedness of the Indian background.
They believe this because this was generally true in India, and they had the luxury of a childlike ignorance of human sexuality. But both assumptions are increasingly untrue, and most Indians are not even remotely prepared for the changes that globalization would bring to India.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 26, 2010 at 02:25 PM
cheetah,
You need to start separating the concept of 'companionship' from the legal contract of marriage, which IS a business contract.
This is next to impossible for an Indian to do, but it can be done. Indians in India have the luxury of simplistic ignorance, because the 1% of Indians were geniuses who devised a system where the other 99% could live their lives smoothly despite having no knowledge whatsoever. The Indian customs of keeping girls virgins, have them move in with the inlaws after marriage, with dowry as a security bond, were brilliant, and reveal an excellent understanding of female psychology.
1% of Indians were geniuses, and created a system that could enable the other 99% to live in ignorant bliss. Indians follow these customs, even though they have no inkling of the 'why' behind any of it...
Posted by: The Futurist | September 26, 2010 at 02:32 PM