In Defense Of Women

ISBN: 1483999998

In this book, H. L. Mencken gives us his thoughts and analysis on American women through dozens of little essays that range in topic from female intelligence to their behavior during marriage. While it is sometimes hard to tell if he is satirizing or not, he does make the case that women have been long underestimated by men. The fact that they can deceive men into marriage, something which offers men little benefit, is actually proof of their superiority. You may have seen a similar argument in The Manipulated Man.

I am convinced that the average woman, whatever her deficiencies, is greatly superior to the average man. The very ease with which she defies and swindles him in several capital situations of life is the clearest of proofs of her general superiority. She did not obtain her present high immunities as a gift from the gods, but only after a long and often bitter fight, and in that fight she exhibited forensic and tactical talents of a truly admirable order. There was no weakness of man that she did not penetrate and take advantage of. There was no trick that she did not put to effective use. There was no device so bold and inordinate that it daunted her.


The whole bag of tricks of the average business man, or even of the average professional man, is inordinately childish. It takes no more actual sagacity to carry on the everyday hawking and haggling of the world, or to ladle out its normal doses of bad medicine and worse law, than it takes to operate a taxicab or fry a pan of fish.


The inherent tendency of any woman above the most stupid is to evade the whole obligation, and, if she cannot actually evade it, to reduce its demands to the minimum. And when some accident purges her, either temporarily or permanently, of the inclination to marriage (of which much more anon), and she enters into competition with men in the general business of the world, the sort of career that she commonly carves out offers additional evidence of her mental peculiarity. In whatever calls for no more than an invariable technic and a feeble chicanery she usually fails; in whatever calls for independent thought and resourcefulness she usually succeeds. Thus she is almost always a failure as a lawyer, for the law requires only an armament of hollow phrases and stereotyped formulae, and a mental habit which puts these phantasms above sense, truth and justice; and she is almost always a failure in business, for business, in the main, is so foul a compound of trivialities and rogueries that her sense of intellectual integrity revolts against it. But she is usually a success as a sick-nurse, for that profession requires ingenuity, quick comprehension, courage in the face of novel and disconcerting situations, and above all, a capacity for penetrating and dominating character; and whenever she comes into competition with men in the arts, particularly on those secondary planes where simple nimbleness of mind is unaided by the masterstrokes of genius, she holds her own invariably.


If the work of the average man required half the mental agility and readiness of resource of the work of the average prostitute, the average man would be constantly on the verge of starvation.


Women decide the larger questions of life correctly and quickly, not because they are lucky guessers, not because they are divinely inspired, not because they practise a magic inherited from savagery, but simply and solely because they have sense. They see at a glance what most men could not see with searchlights and telescopes; they are at grips with the essentials of a problem before men have finished debating its mere externals. They are the supreme realists of the race. Apparently illogical, they are the possessors of a rare and subtle super-logic. Apparently whimsical, they hang to the truth with a tenacity which carries them through every phase of its incessant, jellylike shifting of form. Apparently unobservant and easily deceived, they see with bright and horrible eyes.

The issue of marriage is brought up at length, especially how women manipulate men to do their bidding. If men were indeed the superior sex, why would they ever get married? Even in modern times, men are falling over themselves to be white knights trapped in the friendzone without receiving sexual benefits. Women deserve credit from this.

The very fact that marriages occur at all is a proof, indeed, that they are more cool-headed than men, and more adept in employing their intellectual resources, for it is plainly to a man’s interest to avoid marriage as long as possible, and as plainly to a woman’s interest to make a favourable marriage as soon as she can. The efforts of the two sexes are thus directed, in one of the capital concerns of life, to diametrically antagonistic ends. Which side commonly prevails? I leave the verdict to the jury. All normal men fight the thing off; some men are successful for relatively long periods; a few extraordinarily intelligent and courageous men (or perhaps lucky ones) escape altogether. But, taking one generation with another, as every one knows, the average man is duly married and the average woman gets a husband. Thus the great majority of women, in this clear-cut and endless conflict, make manifest their substantial superiority to the great majority of men.

The manipulation skill Mencken describes is gradually being lost on modern American women, who seem to be having trouble getting high quality men to enter basic relationships with them. Their intelligence was not entirely innate as Mencken suspected, but also cultural. An environment that doesn’t train its women to extract marriage from men will create what we currently have: fat, entitled, tatted-up sluts who enter spinsterdom after 30 and then whine on the internet about not being able to find a good man. Just like in The Manipulated Man, he seemed to be almost perfectly describing Ukrainian women of today, a sort of quintessential feminine archetype.

He was not kind on the overall value females possess:

The female body, even at its best is very defective in form; it has harsh curves and very clumsily distributed masses; compared to it the average milk-jug, or even cuspidor, is a thing of intelligent and gratifying design—in brief, an objet d’art. The fact was curiously (and humorously) display during the late war, when great numbers of women in all the belligerent countries began putting on uniforms. Instantly they appeared in public in their grotesque burlesques of the official garb of aviators, elevator boys, bus conductors, train guards, and so on, their deplorable deficiency in design was unescapably revealed.


The average woman, until art comes to her aid, is ungraceful, misshapen, badly calved and crudely articulated, even for a woman. If she has a good torso, she is almost sure to be bow-legged. If she has good legs, she is almost sure to have bad teeth. If she has good teeth, she is almost sure to have scrawny hands, or muddy eyes, or hair like oakum, or no chin. A woman who meets fair tests all ’round is so uncommon that she becomes a sort of marvel, and usually gains a livelihood by exhibiting herself as such, either on the stage, in the half-world, or as the private jewel of some wealthy connoisseur.


Men do not demand genuine beauty, even in the most modest doses; they are quite content with the mere appearance of beauty. That is to say, they show no talent whatever for differentiating between the artificial and the real. A film of face powder, skilfully applied, is as satisfying to them as an epidermis of damask. The hair of a dead Chinaman, artfully dressed and dyed, gives them as much delight as the authentic tresses of Venus.

He goes on to discuss suffragists and feminists, and why their movement is sour grapes:

There are, of course, women who spend a great deal of time denouncing and reviling men, but these are certainly not genuine man-haters; they are simply women who have done their utmost to snare men, and failed. Of such sort are the majority of inflammatory suffragettes of the sex-hygiene and birth-control species.


I’ll begin to believe in the man-hater the day I am introduced to a woman who has definitely and finally refused a chance of marriage to a man who is of her own station in life, able to support her, unafflicted by any loathsome disease, and of reasonably decent aspect and manners—in brief a man who is thoroughly eligible. I doubt that any such woman breathes the air of Christendom.


It is, indeed, not until a woman has definitely put away the hope of marriage, or, at all events, admitted the possibility that she, may have to do so soon or late, that she buckles down in earnest to whatever craft she practises, and makes a genuine effort to develop competence. No sane man, seeking a woman for a post requiring laborious training and unremitting diligence, would select a woman still definitely young and marriageable. To the contrary, he would choose either a woman so unattractive sexually as to be palpably incapable of snaring a man, or one so embittered by some catastrophe of amour as to be pathologically emptied of the normal aspirations of her sex.


The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. She likes masculine admiration, however violently expressed, and is quite able to take care of herself. More, she is well aware that very few men are bold enough to offer it without a plain invitation, and this awareness makes her extremely cynical of all women who complain of being harassed, beset, storied, and seduced.


All such suffragists (save a few miraculous beauties) marry ninth-rate men when they marry at all. They have to put up with the sort of castoffs who are almost ready to fall in love with lady physicists, embryologists, and embalmers.

He makes the argument that first-rate men are smart enough to avoid marriage, adding that the dowry was a smart way for women and their families to convince men to enter what amounts to a bad deal.

Here we have a sufficient explanation of the general superiority of bachelors, so often noted by students of mankind—a superiority so marked that it is difficult, in all history, to find six first-rate philosophers who were married men. The bachelor’s very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex—in other words, of his greater approximation to the clear headedness of the enemy sex. He is able to defeat the enterprise of women because he brings to the business an equipment almost comparable to their own.


It is, of course, not well for the world that the highest sort of men are thus selected out, as the biologists say, and that their superiority dies with them, whereas the ignoble tricks and sentimentalities of lesser men are infinitely propagated. Despite a popular delusion that the sons of great men are always dolts, the fact is that intellectual superiority is inheritable, quite as easily as bodily strength; and that fact has been established beyond cavil by the laborious inquiries of Galton, Pearson and the other anthropometricians of the English school. If such men as Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spencer, and Nietzsche had married and begotten sons, those sons, it is probable, would have contributed as much to philosophy as the sons and grandsons of Veit Bach contributed to music, or those of Erasmus Darwin to biology, or those of Henry Adams to politics, or those of Hamilcar Barcato the art of war.


Monogamy, in brief, kills passion—and passion is the most dangerous of all the surviving enemies to what we call civilization, which is based upon order, decorum, restraint, formality, industry, regimentation. The civilized man—the ideal civilized man—is simply one who never sacrifices the common security to his private passions.


All animal breeders know how difficult it is to maintain a fine strain. The universe seems to be in a conspiracy to encourage the endless reproduction of peasants and Socialists, but a subtle and mysterious opposition stands eternally against the reproduction of philosophers.


The marriage of a first-rate man, when it takes place at all, commonly takes place relatively late. He may succumb in the end, but he is almost always able to postpone the disaster a good deal longer than the average poor clodpate, or normal man. If he actually marries early, it is nearly always proof that some intolerable external pressure has been applied to him, as in Shakespeare’s case, or that his mental sensitiveness approaches downright insanity, as in Shelley’s.


Another reason for the relatively late marriages of superior men is found, perhaps, in the fact that, as a man grows older, the disabilities he suffers by marriage tend to diminish and the advantages to increase. At thirty a man is terrified by the inhibitions of monogamy and has little taste for the so-called comforts of a home; at sixty he is beyond amorous adventure and is in need of creature ease and security. What he is oftenest conscious of, in these later years, is his physical decay; he sees himself as in imminent danger of falling into neglect and helplessness. He is thus confronted by a choice between getting a wife or hiring a nurse, and he commonly chooses the wife as the less expensive and exacting. The nurse, indeed, would probably try to marry him anyhow.


This brings us to a fact frequently noted by students of the subject: that first-rate men, when they marry at all, tend to marry noticeably inferior wives. The causes of the phenomenon, so often discussed and so seldom illuminated, should be plain by now. The first-rate man, by postponing marriage as long as possible, often approaches it in the end with his faculties crippled by senility, and is thus open to the advances of women whose attractions are wholly meretricious, e.g., empty flappers, scheming widows, and trained nurses with a highly developed professional technic of sympathy. If he marries at all, indeed, he must commonly marry badly, for women of genuine merit are no longer interested in him.


A husband begins by kissing a pretty girl, his wife; it is pleasant to have her so handy and so willing. He ends by making machiavellian efforts to avoid kissing the every day sharer of his meals, books, bath towels, pocketbook, relatives, ambitions, secrets, malaises and business: a proceeding about as romantic as having his boots blacked. The thing is too horribly dismal for words. Not all the native sentimentalism of man can overcome the distaste and boredom that get into it.

The aging first-rate man succumbs to marriage because his declining mental agility can no longer put up a defense to what is likely a far younger seducer. He could only resist when he was young, sharp, and at the peak of his value.

Mencken also makes the observation that feminists wrongly assume that the average “privileged” man is rolling in women, ready to cheat on his loyal wife with one beauty after another…

He is a polygamous, multigamous, myriadigamous; an insatiable and unconscionable debauche, a monster of promiscuity; prodigiously unfaithful to his wife, and even to his friends’ wives; fathomlessly libidinous and superbly happy.

They construct a fictional narrative to justify their hatred of men that is nothing close to reality. The average man is actually quite lacking in quality women, having to work menial jobs just to get by, lucky at all to engage in commitment-free sex.

He continues to bash marriage:

The English wife of tradition, so thoroughly a femme covert, is being displaced by a gadabout, truculent, irresponsible creature, full of strange new ideas about her rights, and strongly disinclined to submit to her husband’s authority, or to devote herself honestly to the upkeep of his house, or to bear him a biological sufficiency of heirs.


If the average American husband wants a sound dinner he must go to a restaurant to get it, just as if he wants to refresh himself with the society of charming and well-behaved children, he has to go to an orphan asylum. Only the immigrant can take his case and invite his soul within his own house.


A woman, if she hates her husband (and many of them do), can make life so sour and obnoxious to him that even death upon the gallows seems sweet by comparison.


In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate numskull—and marries him out of hand.

Apparently, America was always at the forefront of bowing to women. Even in Mencken’s time, women had the leeway to slouch in marriage and get half a man’s property upon divorce. In spite of having all their wishes granted since then, they still claim unhappiness, no better off than the traditional arrangement:

I am sorry for the suffragettes who specialize in the double standard, for when they get into pantaloons at last, and have the new freedom, they will discover to their sorrow that they have been pursuing a chimera—that there is really no such animal as the male anarchist they have been denouncing and envying—that the wholesale fornication of man, at least under Christian democracy, has little more actual existence than honest advertising or sound cooking. They have followed the porno maniacs in embracing a piece of buncombe, and when the day of deliverance comes it will turn to ashes in their arms.

Behold his amazing prophecy:

Now that women have the political power to obtain their just rights, they will begin to lose their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world. When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes, and some of the fair ones, I suspect, will begin to wonder why they didn’t let well enough alone.

Overall, his analysis was brutal yet accurate, written during a time when women had a surprising amount of liberties. This does not match the toxic ejaculate that feminists spray onto the masses today. Women were never chained up to the kitchen. They weren’t beaten and treated like children. They weren’t prevented from getting an education. Their story has always been a far cry from reality.

A lot of Mencken’s ideas ringed familiar to me, meaning that many in the manosphere have been inadvertently continuing his work, and thank goodness for that. Sometimes it takes a while for an idea to find its time. I highly recommended this book.

Read More: “In Defense Of Women” on Amazon


  1. Xavier January 6, 2014 at 9:30 am

    “The female body, even at its best is very defective in form”- Mencken

    Where is he logic in the above quote???
    I guess that’s why sex sells and the whole pua community exists???
    Going back further in history, Renaisance painter Botticelli has a painting on exhibit at the Uffizu Gallery of a most excellent group of women nude in an orchard. Even in the renaissance aka pre-post modern reprobate age a woman’s body was and still is one of the most beautiful things in existence. I enjoyed much of men lens reasoning but that quite had me sneering and laughing at the same time at its level of delusion.

    1. tu_ne_cede_malis January 6, 2014 at 11:28 am

      He is talking about the average woman, who is indeed quite frumpy and nondescript. Note the part where he says that beautiful women tend to become models, actresses, or trophies of wealthy connoisseurs.

      1. somercet May 28, 2015 at 7:50 pm

        “The female body, even at its best is very defective in form.” So these very best, who are very defective in form, go on to become models et al. There is a deeper joke or discontinuity here you are likely passing over.

    2. tedwest January 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm

      yes the female form is great to look at like a work of art. but it is defective in form in terms of its uses beyond an object to be viewed, look at female athletes compared to males, there are 100s maybe 1000s of men who can run faster than the worlds fastest woman. men are better at climbing and swimming and punching. a woman’s jibbly boobs and woobly bum gets in the way and hinders her agility. a mans body is clearly more dynamic and efficient than a womans body (no homo)

      1. CB January 12, 2014 at 12:24 am

        dynamic, yes. but, in regard to efficient, it depends on the context and the goal at hand. women are more flexible, have more flexible and stable lower backs, generally better immune systems (, and perhaps better muscular (not cardiovascular) endurance. yes, of course men are stronger and faster; no disagreement there. but, you’re not being fair or rational. the equivalent of you statement would be for me to call men defective for not being able to carry and birth children (which is an essential function).

      2. Joshua August 26, 2014 at 8:03 am

        Schopenhauer on female “beauty”

        Here is what Schopenhauer says:

        It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct
        that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and
        short-legged race the name of the fair sex ; for the entire beauty of
        the sex is based on this instinct.

        One would be more justified in
        calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful.

        But I would take it further. It is only through a lot of unnatural
        cosmetics (which includes not only makeup, but plastic surgery, fancy
        clothes, hair removal, tanning, and so on) that woman can be considered sexually appealing.

    3. Ternarydemon January 6, 2014 at 8:47 pm

      Take into account that he was probaly referring to english women, who, besides the nobility classes, certainly carry dreadful genes and tend to smash the Wall even at 25.

  2. myron gainz January 6, 2014 at 10:09 am

    If you haven’t already, you should read “Women’s Infidelity” by Michelle Langley. Both part 1 and 2 are available for free online via pdf. It’s an eye opening book and for a woman author, she really hits it on the head without letting her hamster interfere too much. I definitely recommend that book and “The Female Con”.

    1. Krum May 6, 2015 at 4:22 pm

      Don’t be fooled Langley’s book is just one giant hamster spinning at full speed. She has found herself a niche market which consists of the Desperate Housewifes who searche for any untapped justification for their poor judgement.

  3. seth datta January 6, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Ugh. After slowly unravelling the social matrix of lies and taking the red pill for ten years, all I get the feeling is that as a man, you only have value to the majority of women by being an object they can use. They parasitize off you, or use you for a status symbol, or a confidence boost…etc Most do not care about you as a person and are so solipsistic as to ignore what works best for the both of you and society at large. They only shit test you to divide you into red pill sexworthy man versus beta provider chump – thing is, there are less chumps to go around these days and there is no money left over for feminism.

    As much as I shouldn’t, I will be laughing out loud when the whole thing collapses (currently happening and may take 10 years or so) and the women cry out for men to provide and save them…

    1. disqus_Bgg3B9FBFp January 7, 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Great comment. If anything, by trying to become men, the only thing feminism has done is magnify the differences between the sexes. Now, more than ever, I’m willing to bet there are more hard working, talented, responsible men on the dating market than there are decent women. Women, on the other hand, hear “you need to exercise” and think “I’m ATTRACTIVE society is wrong – the standard of beauty must change!”
      Men think, “How much can you bench?” And put in the fucking work. It’s objective, not personal, which ironically results in personal growth. The good news is that hot, feminine women appreciate good men now more than ever. Besides, being on welfare and collecting child support while an immigrant cleans your house isn’t exactly independence.

      1. CB January 12, 2014 at 12:14 am

        Do you have a source to back up that difference? If we’re being purely anecdotal here, I see just as many lazy men as women.

    2. Feminine_Spirit January 8, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      Indian society is most effeminate and feminine of all, I personally think that Hinduism and Jewish clique are symbols Feminine spirit and degeneracy

      Jews and hindus have very feminine culture and they immigrate and destroy all masculine cultures in this world. This is why both Jews and Hindus have been ruled over by others, since Jews and hindus have got freedom their spirit started destroying the world

      1. SpartacusRex July 5, 2015 at 7:56 am

        Holy Fuck you are ignorant. Do you know that Scandanavian and Indian Aryans threw widows on our burning warriors pyres? Truly, matriarchy is strong in the older cultures, naturally, hence we created patriarchy to stomp the shit out of it. Which of course feminist Britain had a real problem with when the male Gods invaded from the East. Do yourself a favor and read a book.

    3. Take The Red Pill February 22, 2014 at 9:30 am

      It’s a bad idea nowadays to depend on these toxic women for your meals (e.g., “make me a sandwich”, etc.) . They are so hateful and devious that they could easily poison you and then invent some feminist sob story about how you “abused” them and they were so “afraid”, they had to do it to “escape” you.

  4. Jeb January 6, 2014 at 11:28 am

    Men are not legally required to marry. Don’t marry. Problem solved.

    1. Purple Penguin January 6, 2014 at 11:30 am

      They’re not legally required to marry, but some laws can (and probably will) be passed to incite them to marry again.

      1. Jeb January 6, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        All the more reason to resist. Withhold your financial resources, seed, emotions, and time. Resist government-sponsored financial incentives to marry. Shun society-sanctioned and religion-induced guilt/shame to wed. A man doesn’t have to marry if he really doesn’t want to. Live your life on your own terms, as Roosh is doing.

      2. Purple Penguin January 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm

        Don’t worry I know that freedom is far more important than any incentive. But it still bother me to be penalized for that choice.

      3. Take The Red Pill February 22, 2014 at 9:19 am

        The later emperors of the Roman Empire passed a “bachelor tax” to ‘encourage’ their single men to marry the ‘liberated’ harlots that the Roman women had become…all because there were not enough Roman male children being born that would become future soldiers to defend the Empire.
        The idea didn’t work — the bachelors (or at least, most of them) paid the tax rather than marry — which shows you what was the worst incentive.

        And the rest, they say, is history.

    2. Slashfund January 6, 2014 at 11:52 am

      Women voters constantly nag and demand money from men they aren’t even married to. Once Hilary is elected you’ll even have a nasty mother-in-law to boss you around

      1. rez January 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm

        the thought of that repugnant arch-cunt taking power is sickening.

      2. Thomas J January 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm

        Perhaps British conspiracy theorist David Icke is right- Hillary aka Hildabeast, Obamanation, etc. are l shape shifting reptilians who work for blood drinking lizard Illuminati Zionist banker clans like the Rothschilds, and Rockefellers (the Jews who created feminism at their foundation so they could have two not one income to tax and make the kids state property whe brainwashing them into slavery and slowly reducing the goyims proletariat population numbers).
        Henry Makiw is the guy who breaks down feminism as well as anyone can-

  5. poicc January 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Women have done damn well gaining power from (guess who?) men. As any human group in this planet, they take advantage from what they can provide to their own interests.

    Do they have to be blamed/hated/called sluts for this? I don’t think so. That’s where I think this whole manosphere stuff is wrong.

  6. Armchair General January 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Sadly, even today, 99.99% men are all into marriage. One dude that i found that agrees with me on anti-marriage is accidentally or not, the dude which highly resembles my lifestyle ideas.

    Quick question for Roosh. Is Lublin n1 town in Poland ?

  7. rez January 6, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    thank you for sharing this Roosh.

    many of these quotes left me slack–jawed. will order this book immediately

    1. Revo Luzione January 7, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      There are free copies available as e-books online. It’s out of copyright, so is public domain.

  8. Quintus Curtius January 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    Mencken was a genius. He is sorely missed.

    1. Nick January 10, 2014 at 12:47 am

      I see a lot of Mencken in what Roosh and Heartiste write. If there’s one thing the sphere could do better it’s to use more humorous satire and mockery to get points across, like Mencken did. If you can make someone laugh while explaining how the world really works, it’s a lot more effective and memorable than just stating the facts. Thanks for reposting so much of this text Roosh, it’s golden.

  9. 'Reality' Doug January 6, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Women do NOT define marriage. Men do. Right now marriage belongs to the hidden patriarchy. If rank-and-file men (and women) defined their marriages as personal institutions with general contract law, men with political agency to be male popular soveriegns would have agency to make women useful the only way they can be as a group. Marriage is for men, just a question of which men. Women get whatever the men who ‘take care of them’ give them. Because of institutional power, it has been better for nearly all men to pursue economic rewards and ride the political rewards that are slowly being taken away. Da chick-ennnnzzzzz, have cum hoooome, ta rooost. Men without agency will continue to think either goobermint marriage or nothing. Nearby residences would allow a man to pass on culture to his sons and impose his cultural values to protect his daughters natural civilized utility. That is what the hidden patriarch does not want, cultural viability, which is based on cultural reproduction in the rank and file.

  10. F.U. January 6, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Mencken is my great, great uncle from Baltimore. Thanks for appreciation of his work. I think this is from where I get my strong views about life.

  11. Bob January 6, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    “The fact that they can deceive men into marriage, something which offers men little benefit, is actually proof of their superiority. You may have seen a similar argument in The Manipulated Man.”

    I have to respectfully digress here a bit. The only reason women are able to dupe men into marriage is because, unfortunately there exists an aspect of men to be pre-disposed to want to settle down and be with that special girl in his life. It’s not beta to want to be with one chick under the patriarchy, It’s beta to want to be with any chick today given the current state of affairs.

    Shakespeare was probably one of the first psychologists simply because he could make very astute observations of feelings in men that are universal throughout time (until the human race evloves into something partially carbon based, and partically computer ship based entity) and sentiments of love, though sily as they are are very real. The drawback is that Shakespeare incorrectly assumed that love from women was the sme. men have the potenital to love women, but women only love the things men do for women.

  12. frogmallet January 6, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    this is brilliant:
    “This does not match the toxic ejaculate that feminists spray onto the masses today. “

  13. Piotr January 7, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    Amazon? It’s free on Gutenberg!

    1. Nick January 10, 2014 at 12:38 am

      it’s free on Amazon as well

  14. Krista January 13, 2014 at 11:55 pm

    You’re on to us!

  15. woughweuoh January 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    Mencken did ultimately marry, however. I read the book, found it sensible, and then learned he didn’t even take his own advice.

    1. Samseau January 20, 2014 at 9:48 pm

      Not true. Mencken married at 38 to an 18 year old girl. He waited as long as possible, and then cashed out with a good deal. I definitely will do my best to emulate his decisions.

      1. woughweuoh January 24, 2014 at 1:54 pm

        Sara Haardt was born in 1898 and she married HLM in 1930. She was 18 years younger than he was, but she definitely wasn’t 18.

  16. Hermann Spitta November 12, 2014 at 6:26 am

    Hey Roosh. I greatly enjoy your book reviews. I’ve discovered a lot of great books just reading these. So please continue to add more reviews.

  17. somercet May 28, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Thank you for reminding me: I never liked Mencken.

  18. Joanna March 9, 2016 at 9:10 am

    “Ringed” is not the past tense of “ring”, that is “rang”.