How we see women is not the same as how our grandfathers see women. They saw them as delicate creatures who could be a source of happiness, love, and, most importantly, children, but modern men are stuck with a different breed of women who care less about intimate relations and creating families than pursuing money, seeking validation and attention online, being trendy consumers, and satisfying their hedonistic needs with bad boys or clowns. A man who tries to emulate his grandfather by treating a modern woman with love or care is certain to get emotionally or financially destroyed.
So what’s left for us? How should we deal with the strong and independent modern woman? We should view them as oil wells that can provide a commodity that healthy men need to function properly: sex. Now that the emotional and familial purpose of male-female interactions are being eliminated, thanks to a woman’s demand for “independence,” a modern man should focus on extracting as many instances of sex from individual women as he can until the well becomes dry. Modern women are too broken, unreliable, and narcissistic to be give men anything reliable besides fornication, so this is what you must aim for if you want to get something out of the current oil boom. Any other strategy will result in disappointment and failure.
It’s first important to realize that not all oil wells are equal. Some are easy to find while others require delicate GPS sensors. Some oil wells are on land and therefore easily accessible to eager miners while other wells are hidden under the sea. Some wells are easy to drill while others require advanced machinery and engineering to reach. Some wells have oil that requires little processing while others may be too expensive to mine in current market conditions. And finally, some mines have plentiful reserves that last for long periods of time while others get tapped out quickly.
Women are just like oil mines in that they’re not all equal in how they present their sexual interest, what game methods they require for sex, how long it takes them to have sex with you, how accessible they are to other miners, and how many instances of sex you will have with her until it no longer becomes profitable to mine her. This is not how our grandfathers approached women. They viewed them as a construction site with plentiful raw materials where a wonderful home could be built to last for over 50 years, a home that was worth maintaining and caring for. If you approach women in such a manner today, a tornado will rip through the construction site before you’ve even established the foundation. You’ll lose your entire investment.
Not long ago I dated a Polish girl who was 14 years younger than me. She was pleasant enough but I could tell she’s in the middle of her carousel ride and so not appropriate for a serious relationship. I did just enough work to keep her interested so that when I needed sex, she gave it to me, and as long as I was interested in our arrangement, I continued tapping her well to my sexual satisfaction. But I would be foolhardy to try to build a home with her since she is not made of the same stuff as her mother and grandmothers, and so I will not treat her as if she’s something she’s not. She’s an oil well, and I will use my drill to gain as much black liquid as I can until the well taps out, and then be forced to move on to another.
Not long ago men used to make houses, but now we’re oil prospectors, emptying the reservoir of one well before inevitably moving on, and I’m not sure if this is a better way for us to live than men of the past.
The title of this post says it all
Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities.
This is not something men have done to them.
Women are doing it to themselves.
there’s just no incentive to commit to a girl anymore.
1. she gets fat
2. she rapidly loses her beauty around 27
3. she can financially rape you on a whim
4. their sex drive goes away
5. she can have the police state arrest you
6. she can easily take your kids
7. her family will probably bullshit you and treat you like an outsider
all this when you can get sex for free elsewhere.
when women were good mothers and homemakers, there was a reward for a man to commit. that reward is completely gone, only the sucker men are still falling for it.
society was better off when the parents simply picked a husband for their daughter and she was expected to stay with him. women initiate like 80% of divorces, they aren’t happy when you give them freedom anyways.
Even then her family is has an undercurrent of disrespect towards you, it’s just not worth it
Not to mention the fu£$ing expensive wedding they expect.
There are stats that say the fewer sex partners they have, the less chance you will get divorced. There are also stats that say that an expensive wedding and honeymoon reduce the odds of divorce.
It’s all very “duh”.
I don’t think that good women want huge weddings. Women who want big and expensive weddings are deluded and entitled princesses who watch too much tv.
You have to get a feel for the statistics. I suspect that wealthy people have an easier time in the marriage game because they have less stress. A big wedding and/or honeymoon means dollars going into the relationship. Those marriages survive but if you are scraping it out making $40k a year then it does not bode well.
That’s true. I’m not talking about the 1% though. I’m speaking of regular middle class folk who spend a year’s salary trying to compete with the Kartrashians with overpriced weddings.
I have two cousins who both had 20-30K weddings. They were both middle to upper middle class. Their marriages did not last a year.
The same year my cousins married, my husband and I eloped because the recession was tough on us and we didn’t want to wait to afford a wedding. We are celebrating five years this October. Five years is certainly not a long marriage but at least we didn’t divorce in the first year.
It is all about priorities. Too many women are too busy planning a wedding and not a marriage. I have been through hard times with my husband and that strengthened our relationship. I’ve been with him while he had money, when he was flat broke and watched him rebuild our finances. Now we are doing well again. I’m glad that I stayed loyal.
I agree. They focus on being the bride, but not in being a wife.
This IS Disgusting. I am a good wife…I handle my home….I provide my husband with whatever he needs and I have no desire for expensive gifts. I am 39..and I have not gained a pound since high school. I think it is wrong to assume all women are this self centered bitch you tote to your books. You are the reason women dont trust men anymore. You are creating the problems you are railing about.
I don’t know why you are blaming me for the way men think about women these days. The fact of the matter is, most women are not like you and I. That is why you see so many huge weddings and fewer intimate nuptials or elopements. Please take your anger somewhere else. I am allergic to needless drama.
Speak for yourself. There’s no drama, but a blatant misrepresentation of today’s society. Where I live (Dallas), there are lots of unbroken, good solid families. You are in the minority on your views on women. I pity those that get involved with bastards like you. They are being set up from day one by being used, & not even aware of it. Women are not wells or f… commodities.
I am a woman. I pity you because are clearly you are very stupid.
I wasn’t even talking about families in the first place. I was speaking of weddings and the women who are desperate to have large ones. Try to keep up before ranting irrationally.
& I pity you. You are a moron & a disrespectful b.tch.
Ooh, what a comeback! You basically repeated what I said. Be more original if you want to be taken seriously, Comrade.
If you were so educated and successful, you wouldn’t have time to troll a comments section and look for arguments like a child in middle school. You would also be bright enough to see that my avatar is a WOMAN before you assumed that I was male.
Are you done, miss troll-y? Good. It’s sad that the whole conversation has been steered away from the insanity of this Website, and toward impersonal bickering. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you (thank God!). So, au revoir yankie.
Bitch, do not start fights if you cannot handle the backlash. Now I’m done.
Lol, I can handle you no problem. Now go fuck yourself!!!!
And you wouldn’t collapse into an ad hominem attack if you were confident that the position you take is logical, reasonable and well-founded.
Are you trying to resurrect an argument that ended weeks ago?
Please go and find a hobby. I bet you are the same woman whose comments were deleted.
Ckay you have stumbled across a bunch of male losers
who have never had a girlfriend or wife.
I suppose they may have had a failed marriage and its all women’s fault. NO doubt.
And the writer of this blog claims to have all these relationships with women .
I can’t find one picture of him with a woman and he has even made videos where he walks around filming woman in Poland ‘ Like they were cattle .
I doubt him and his followers have had any luck with the opposite sex and we both know why.
They are stuck in the past like two hundred years or so.
And for those losers i just say i have been with my partner for around twenty eight years two children and my wife was right by my side as i fought against cancer doing everything i could not do and not allowing me to do things that might put myself at risk.
Thank you Real Man. I agree completely. Sorry about your cancer, so glad you had a lady who stood by your side. .
He is right. Most women are spoiled princesses who prefer bad boys over nice guys,do not want to commit to a long-term relationship, cheat on their spouse, use men for money/green card, etc.
I’ve been married 14 years, 37 & still modeling (an ongoing career on the side). People think I am in my 20s. 5’7″, 115lb. I wrote a book, have two degrees & a job. This rape author & scumbag is disgusting. Men like him will never have kids anyway, & so their DNA will hopefully die out.
He’s right. Just because you have a vagina does not mean you know your female species well. I do not believe you do those things. Please do not divorce your husband take his wealth like most women do. He worked his ass off unlike you. You women are not pure sweet creatures. Thanks to feminism and the media, most women do not want to commit to a long-term relationship. Most prefer bad boys over guys who will treat them well, financially raping men in the divorce courts, using men for money, cheating on their husbands/boyfriends, destroying men, wearing too many tatoos and piercings, have too many casual sex that they can’t be mothers anymore, etc. You women are weak minded creatures, You guys lost your feminine side.
It really amazes me when men complain about this and say that women nowadays pass over the guys that would treat them well for the bad guys. How many men have passed over the nice, sweet and caring women for the bitchy and crazy ones just because the latter was more attractive? Even sometimes when the nice sweet girl isn’t fat, she just isn’t as hot as the bitchy one, they will pass her up, use her for sex when they’re bored, dump her and marry the hot but crazy one. I have seen so many situations like this.
I’m not absolving women, who choose bad boys, of any blame here, but just like the women, some of you guys bring these horrible fates upon yourselves by placing attractiveness way above character and marrying or entering into relationships with terrible women.
The hypocrisy is clear as day.
Alex that’s BS and you know it, most men would take a solid 6 without hesitation if she was sweet. Women expect something insane.
I’m an Engineer, I got some scratch, very respectable car. I’m neither shy nor vulger. Not desperate, in fact, I hardly even care at this point.
I likely could be able to sleep with a youngish woman, like 25, assuming I put all my energy into getting laid and cruising bars at losing time. Getting one to marry me, yea right… she’d be 35 minimum, and that’s with me being 5 years younger.
You must run in very different circles than I do. Can you honestly say you’ve not seen some men choose poorly, despite the warning advice from their friends? A lot of the men I’m surrounded by, get 7’s and above for their first marriage and then when they realize how batshit crazy she is, especially after the inevitable divorce, they ‘settle’ for the nice 5’s and 6’s in the next marriage because they realized the value of kindness over hotness. Who the hell likes to be thought of as being settled for?
Also, I’m confused by your last statement. Do you mean you don’t want to marry the 25 year olds, or the 25 year olds don’t want to marry you?
Alex, of course plenty of men choose horrible women! This happens also, but the choices are not equal. You’re demanding an 8 man, accepts the 6 woman, when the 6 woman, won’t touch the 6 man.
Settling isn’t messed up either, that’s called life, it’s a series of settlements and compromise. Yea it sucks to know that whatever future partner I find would skip town if she had a Brad Pitt making an offer…
This is where real relationship work comes in though, in a real relationship you must care about each other’s insecurities. Everyone has them, they are part of life, pretending they don’t exist doesn’t fix the problem.
That’s why when someone you think is sexy invites you to do something in a social context, you must say no. It’s not about trust, it’s about protecting your relationship, that’s what commitment actually means.
O, and when I said nobody would marry me, I meant many 25 y/o women are not really interested in marriage. Of course some are, but it’s a minority precentage, plus they all get married to the few available 8-9 men… and then, the 6’s wait till their 35, before considering the equivalent man.
You know what? I agree with what you’re saying here, but it really doesn’t contradict much of what I’ve said. I’m not and have never demanded an 8 man to accept a 6 woman. But the truth is, if an 8 man is looking to get in a relationship or get married and all the other equivalent 8 women within his vicinity are total bitches and non-relationship material, then assuming he doesn’t want to leave where he is, it would be better for him to find a 7 or 6 woman to settle down with. He should not proceed to enter a committed relationship with the bitchy and unsuitable 8 women because she looks better on his arm and gives him an ego or validation boost, get inevitably divorce raped a few years later, and then come back and bitch about how all women are total bitches and AWALT.
From your comments, it doesn’t seem like you do this and as you’ve said, you would be fine with a sweet 6 woman, but my initial comment was directed at the men that don’t have the same mindset as yours. Personally, I have given enough men advice regarding girls with red flags too many times to know that this number of men isn’t an insignificant proportion of the male population.
And the same goes for women. I never said women don’t choose unsuitable partners too, I just pointed out the fact that everyone here seems to forget or at least never mention that some men create their own problems. Yes, it sometimes sucks to find that the only people that are suitable long term for you are people that are less attractive than you might be, but you have to weigh the long term benefits over the short term ones.
There is timing. What’s a good woman? What qualities? What are non negotiable. She loves the country I hate it. Her high school ed leaves her with no vocabulary. Companion? Not.
Men used to be the primary cheaters; now with women in the work force and with it now being the norm to have a divorce under your belt people opt out and stop trying much easier these days.
Ckay, keep putting in to your marriage even if it gets tough.
The men and women of today have it or will have it much harder than previous generations.
Relax …. This is just panzy boys that dont deserve the heart of a woman. They are only good to use and get rid of. Thats why your married to your man. He knows how to treat a lady. He isnt like these dooschebags…..i ask them all ….cant we just fuck and get along??? Lol
You are only one women you stupid, dumb bitch. Your experience and opinion are not relevant, when compared to tens of millions over the last 60 plus years. Typical stupid, myopic, female, her experience is the only one that matters.
There is a popular misconception of what the “1%” are. At present, any family in which the PCDI (Per Capita Disposable Income) is over $30,000 (couple = $60,000; four = $120,000, etc.) is among the “1%.”
Wow, thanks for the fact check! lol
“less stress”?
Tell that to a junior level investment banker, Army officerl, or traveling consultant. They all make varying multiples of 40k but have massively more stressful lives than most 40k jobs do.
It’s simply a case of what you give is what you get. If a guy or a gal can’t even hold down a low wage job what makes them think they’re ready for 18+ years of committment? It’s insane to think they would be but that doesn’t stop people from getting married to fulfill their disney fantasies.
Ceteris paribus. You have a point but use outlying examples. Among those who work 40 hours a week, a $90k pay check will relieve more stress than a $50k pay check.
The quality of women you get is directly correlated to your income and net worth. If you have more money you get better women. Even your looks, height, and other things become irrelevant. I heard a story that women want men who are 6 feet tall or taller but its all bullshit. They want men who can take care of them financially. A guy is a meal ticket in their eyes. Women eat, sleep, and shit, just like men. They want food, shelter, and safety, money provides those things. Unlike men they don’t have to work for those things, they can provide sex and companionship to a man with money.
I even did a little experiment 10 years ago, I went out dressed up in a suit and then went out in jeans and an old t-shirt. Got much better reactions from the opposite sex when I was wearing the suit. Reason is that women assume you have money. Its the same with cars, drive a high end car and you get more attention from the ladies, drive a clunker and they think you are poor.
Any woman who wants a big wedding, is begging her man to dump her and send her merry ass back to the carousel where she belongs. The couples I know of that lasted have small weddings, if any. Some just went to City Hall.
Too much Lifetime. Recently I’ve watched some movies on that channel and it’s always the same: the guy is above 6′ tall, in incredible shape with an amazing career and mind blowing house.
True. My mom and sis like to watch “Say Yes to the Dress” on some stupid cable channel. It’s sickeningly watching overweight hardly attractive women and their haggish hen pecking friends sit around and waltz around in 25.000-50.000 dollar wedding dresses. Meanwhile their fiancees sit haplessly in the corner watching years of savings go down the drain.
My wedding dress cost $700 and it still felt like too much for me.
Try watching Bridezillas.. or even ‘My super sweet 16’.. just the absolute worst women in society.. now on TV teaching young women how to be equally horrible, or worse.
My dress was $99 from David’s. We spent a grand total of $1500 on our destination mountain wedding. We’re both proud that we were able to spend so little but still have a wedding with our family and friends in the location HE initially mentioned.
We’re going to be in a wedding soon, my bridesmaid dress was $79. The cowboy boots I’m required to wear, which will only be worn that one time, were $150. That’s already more than my entire get-up when I got married!
Mine was just $40. It wasn’t actually a wedding dress, but a white lacy strapless party dress. It was perfect. I don’t understand these women who insist on outrageously priced dresses and wedding ceremonies. Like someone here already said, the longest lasting marriages seem to have had small weddings. Maybe this is because they obviously have their priorities in the right place to begin with.
Taryn
It’s an ego trip for them.
Two of my cousins spent over 20K on their weddings when they married the same year I did. They were divorced within a year. My husband and I spent less than 10K on our wedding and honeymoon. We just celebrated our 5th year of marriage.
That is just insane. I went to a wedding once that cost a grand total of $40,000! I about had a heart attack when I found that out o.0
Taryn
Btw, Happy Belated Anniversary
Thank you my friend.
Who is forcing these men to marry? Can’t they take any responsibility for choosing anything or do these women point a gun to their heads and demand a ring?
exactly!
I’ve seen those stats. Brought to you by the big wedding industry. They sell more bullshit fakery than romantic comedies.
>an expensive wedding and honeymoon reduce the odds of divorce.
No. Long-lasting marriages had weddings that were inexpensive but traditionalistic, in general.
Those are not mutually incompatible. An expensive but traditional wedding might be the best.
No I’m telling you the less spent on a wedding the longer the marriage. Great study done recently.
I agree because I can personally vouch for that.
Dunno about that. My ex wife had one partner I gave her the big wedding my “mom and her” wanted and honeymoon lol. But she was a independent Career chick. Thx to her mom made her not give up
Her power for love and be a wife. Wanted to be stubborn so I divorced her. Their horrible self center attitudes is what’s killing them. Not all Dudes but lots are more compromising in relationships nowadays than them.
Well someone had to make the money and clearly it couldn’t be you since you can’t use punctuation, spell or make any sense for that matter. I think you said that your wife chose a career over making her whole existence about you? I’m not real sure.
Lmao, yes I’m guilty of not read proofing.. I was and still I’m, makin more money than her. I supported her to go back to school and helped her with it too.. You taken shots at me is pathetic. Her whole exist about me ?? Where u get that from ? Your bitter.
“You’re” bitter.
Lmaooo.. Thx. Sorry that you got a life that boring.
You’re welcome.
Lmao
:-p
You are cute tho
Thanks!
Let’s never fight again.
Agree. Hope you have a good weekend.
Same to you.
Actually just the opposite. The less spent on a wedding the longer the marriage will last.
From observation, I’ve found there was an inverse relationship between the strength of the marriage and the expense of the wedding. With a few exceptions, of course. Why blow a house payment or an entire downpayment on a colossal party and vacation only to come home to the same old drab, tiny apartment and new debt?
Aren’t the bride’s parents supposed to pay for the wedding?
Traditionally, yes, the bride’s parents paid for the wedding and the party afterward. But the groom’s family was expected to pay for the booze and the bartender.
I had to pay for ALL the wedding out of my own pocket. Wife financially raped me before and throughout the marriage even though I was managed out of my job in February 2014 and haven’t been able to find one since. Wouldn’t sleep with me through the night (preferred sleeping with her children in a separate locked bedroom).
??? Why did you pick this woman? Why did you lead with your wallet? o.O
She was an 8 and very subtle at getting money until after the marriage had been registered in her country – then it became naked greed.
There’s no rating scale when it comes to women. It’s all subjective. A Chubby Chaser can have a different rating than a Victoria Secret chaser.
Dude, what were you thinking?! That sucks.
Too right. I get opened now by women who think I have a lot of cash. It’s not the 1950s. Even doctors can be relatively poor – and I don’t want to lose anything to some woman who will take it all on a whim just so I can be her slave. The worst thing is that the bankers planned this social engineering, and I am forced to go along with the non-marriage thing as there really are no marriage-worthy women, more or less, left in the west. The only men marrying are sadly, manginas and brainwashed slaves of the state, who will keep paying the taxes that are being used for their future enslavement.
men chase money only bcoz women dont sleep with broke men logic. . . . ? we didnt lose God the system we all voted for did
Women sleep with whoever appeals to their emotions. Money is irrelevant.
Wimmin$ emotion$ are ek$ited by and mea$ured in dollar$ (pound£, euro€, et$.).
This is built into their DNA. Wimmins got knocked up, nursed, did the lioness’ share of childraising for the first years. They needed support and protection. But today’s wimmins, at least the noisy, rebellious ones, have thrown off the child part, certainly after one or two that prove that her plumbing works. Unfortunately, the DNA need for financial sexurity remains strong as if they were still birthing a dozen.
Oh yes I remember biology class having a whole chapter on financial security. Oh wait…
Check out the Vatican , the concept of God is the biggest moneychanger there ever was.
The Vatican is a power structure that capitalizes on people’s ignorance -Do not make the mistake of assuming that God approves of the Vatican – When God comes for his war, the Vatican will find the folly of it’s ways.
I don’t believe in the supernatural hence “the concept of god”.
Hypothetically if there are any supernatural beings I assume us both ignorant to their desires.
Well, good. A Q: How did you get here? How did they get here? How did the earth come to be? How did the cosmos come into existence?
If you can stand to say, “I don’t know,” you are better off than most materialists, who construct scenarios that are fatally flawed.
You can talk to God every day by praying, so why God only talks to the priests and have them send the message back? Doesn’t make sense to me.
God works in mysterious ways. Also the messages the priest and saints get may not be from God. Got to remember there are two sides at play.
Every Centralized Church capitalizes on money, as do the Sinagogues.
Read 1 Thessalonians 2:14 and 2:15, John 8:44, Revelations 2:9
Actually, buying into the notion of God is ignorance, yes?
No. God in his true form is for the betterment of all mankind – Churches have a lot of ignorance, Yes.
And J EWs run the Vatican.
Have since 1820s when Rothschild took over the Vatican Bank via Napoleon.
Pope Leo The Khazar was an obvious J EW Pope as well and that goes back to the 8th-9th century.
So? Khazars are an amalgam of a number of Turco-Mongol and Caucasian tribes who were converted politically to Talmudic Judaism in the 9th century. With the rise of the Kievan Rus, the Khazar empire was crushed by the Russians on the north and the Byzantines on the south. Many of them migrated into eastern Europe. While maintaining their traditions, they mixed with the surrounding populations, becoming the European Jews we all know and love so much.
Read all about it in The Jewish Encyclopedia, other Jew-written and produced encyclopedias and The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler, a Khazar Jewish historian.
To me these lines are the most disturbing, and at the crux of it all, as I’ve especially noted both to be the underpinnings of relationship destruction for the short term and long term prospecting..
“they aren’t happy when you give them freedom anyways….
Even then her family is has an undercurrent of disrespect towards you, it’s just not worth it”
They’re own families, including fathers of the more respectful generation just disbelieve you, and believe the painted landscape their daughters describe entirely when all the proof is right in their face. They know their daughters are lying 2-faced worthless fuck holes, but are in total denial.
If you resort entirely to oil prospecting, just like you can’t turn a hoe into a housewife, you can build a house over an oil well.
“Everyone would have fought tooth
could’t agree more
The funny thing about them getting fat and ugly by their late 20’s is that it seems restricted to modern American women. Old school American girls typically stayed bangeable looking and relatively in shape up through middle age. Maybe not beauty models but tolerably good looking nonetheless.
The carousel lifestyle really does take a toll on the female body even if it’s not immediately apparent.
Very true of 2. Though I never would have understood this if I didn’t try Tinder. Unbelievable how ugly women get around 27. Though all that partying and alcohol certainly isn’t helping.
It seems the women who retain their beauty the longest are the ones who don’t get drunk much.
A lot of you guys are sounding wack.
And ladies, guys,… take care of yourself. You’ll look good all your life if you take good care of yourself. Let your body prudently guide you, your body reveals by response. Be aware. What number age you are is only a number, be your best. Eat fundamentally, and to perform all around in life, and that includes the integrity of your body system.
Thanks for that sentimental piece of sweetened flavored faggotry Dr. Phil.
Check the nearest purse for your balls.
For not saying that women having free way for who to fuck with or who to marry lots of men have been deprived of their inalienable right to enjoy the body of a woman whenever they want, being fat or ugly doesn’t matter (though it is not my case), nature didn’t create women for making decisions or having freedom, but for being the purest and simple form of enjoyment-sexual-to men and to give them issue.
A woman can simply get a divorce and ruin your family simply because she got bored.
Instead they should just go out and have sex with other people like men do when they get bored and ruin their family that way.
Because women never do that, right? Give me a break.
My point was that both men and women ruin relationships because they “get bored” and that is there issue not yours or mine.
Guess which side will always be encouraged and praised for wanting a divorce.
That may be true. Just don’t get married and you wont have to worry about it.
let me comment on your list…
1. often
2. not necessarily…many girls look great into their 30’s and 40’s
3. 100% true if you allow it
4. no – sex drive can increase in women into their 30’s and 40’s
5. true
6. true
7. ???? this sounds like a personal gripe
True on #4. I’m banging an early 40s lady and she wants to fuck more than most 18 year old boys.
so you’re actually fucking 18 year old boys, good for you!
You’re witty.
I’m sure the hundreds of women who were chomping at the bit to get a taste of your bigotry and ignorance will be sorely disappointing.
Actually I think you were talking about a pet…
I wish you were reincarnated in a woman’s body and deal with guys like you. Then maybe you would get how gigantically inefficient is your way of thinking. You must be the nu sucker man
Then those are the same reasons why there is no reason to commit to a man:
1.) he gets fat
2.) he starts losing hair around 30
3.) I can make just as much money as him, and not have an asshole for a husband
4.) can no longer get an erection by 35 properly
5.) can have a man hit me and my children
6.) Can leave children and not pay for child support
7.) has a psycho as a mother who is a bitch and makes your life a living hell.
All this when you can get sex for free elsewhere.
When men were good father’s and providers, there was a reward for a woman to commit. That reward is completely gone, and only the sucker women are still falling for it.
Society was better off when the parents simply picked a wife for their son’s, and he was expected to stay with her. Men initiate like 80% of divorce because they get bored with one pussy, and then complain whens he doesn’t want to do the dishes for him anymore.
Why don’t you broaden your horizon and actually pick up a book–you sound super childish in your little list…it can apply to both sides…not just the male side.
They expect women to be perfect but none of them deserve perfection. Even if a woman is perfect, it’s still not enough and they go out and cheat.
Women lose their beauty at 27….Im going to guess that you are not so good looking either.
there is just no incentive to commit to a guy anymore:
1.) he gets fat
2.) he rapidly loses his hair and six pack by age 30
3.) he can actually rape you or beat you
4.) they can no longer keep an erection
5.) he can have the police state arrest you
6.) he can abuse your children
7.) his family will probably bullshit you, and treat you like an outsider, and his mother is probably psycho
why deal with all this we you can get sex for free?
When men were good father’s and providers, there was a reward for the woman to commit. that reward is completely gone, only the sucker women are still falling for it.
society was better off when the parents simply picked a wife for their son, and he was expected to stay with her. men initiate like 80% of divorces, they aren’t happy when you give them freedom anyways.
Even then his family has an undercurrent of disrespect towards you, it is just not worth it.
The very existence of the whipping post helped keep the wifebeating to a low level. Most men did not need it; the few who did were not likely to need it twice.
“Rape?” his wife? A husband cannot rape his lawful wife any more than she cannot rape him.
Rape is taking sexual privileges that do not belong to one. A wife’s sexual faculties belong to her husband, and a husband’s sexual faculties belong to his wife.
If my wife has intercourse with me while I’m asleep, has she raped me? Bullshit. She has the right to have sex with me whenever she wants unless she is on her period or we’re in public. Same for me. I have the right to have sex with my wife whenever I want unless, again, she is on her period or we’re in public.
This is not a right to force sex or to refuse to support her if she is “playing the harlot” (making herself unavailable). It’s a right to expect and to request cooperation from the other. It’s not an enFORCEable right.
The correct term is “rob,” or “loot,” or “impoverish,” “strip naked,” etc., not “rape,” which is to stick a penis into an orifice without the permission of the possessor of the orifice.
No descent mother would take the children from their father about nothing, but if the man is abusive, violent or some like that it might be neccasarily or if fear he will abduct them, afterall it is the women who gives birth, carry the child 9 months, breastfeed them and is the primary caretaker.
You men get bald and impotent. Why should we commit to,you. Never in history have men started impotent in their 20s and now it’s an epidemic. Trust me we are fine without you. Plenty of men around. If you misogynists want to bow out trust me….we’ll be fine
Women cannot tolerate being alone and have highly emotional needs, men requires his needs from nature on an intellectual level. If marriage ended today men would not care at all.
All studies show that men desire to return to being married more often than women do after divorce and that men report being less happy after divorce than women. Women are more likely to see an improvement in health after divorce or being widowed where as men always see a decline in health after divorce or being widowed. 40% of women ages 25-35 want marriage and children where as 80% of men report wanting marriage and children. You are misinformed as to the actual facts Mr Ham. I encourage you to stay far far away from women. Trust me women won’t miss your company. If women are so desiring marriage we wouldn’t be much much more likely to be the ones initiating divorce.
“If marriage ended today men would not care at all”
If this is really true, then what is the point of this article and a lot of other articles on this blog? Why are so many men complaining that women nowadays are no longer marriageable and can only be used for sex?
You may think you don’t need women, but when you men get old and no longer able to garner the string of women that you could in your younger years, loneliness hits you like a slap in the face, just as it does for women. When you’re older and close to your dying days, family becomes the most important thing, to both men and women.
Sorry but disagree here.. Im 28 and look exactly the same but better. Also there are great women out there, you are not attracting them because you probably dont deserve them anyways. Keep looking for the oil wells.
Love it and have you looled in the mirror sweetheart?…. Theres your reaaon darlin. Just sayin.
Feminists and white knights are doing it to the masses of sheep women and betas
They are manipulated from all the subliminal messaging from TV and peer pressure since a young age, so they are doing it via brainwashing. Same thing with Bruce Jenner. The problem is, whatever free will women have is taken up doing the bidding of evil rich banksters and their brethren, who are more interested in wiping us off the map whilst they keep all the resources. And the endgame of a planned financial collapse will be soon, like 2015-2017. Another ‘scalping’ of cash from the now former middle class (soon to be real poor), along with some more fake wars to kill people off, especially the white man.
F*ck this society. And most of all, f*ck the evil c*nts that run it.
calm down chap !!!!
They have been seized by Disney princess theory, and do not realize that they become the evil stepmother. Oblivious to reason, only seek immediate outcomes and impose that upon all males in their ( black widow web) support system.
Ex.) dont start that business just work your job and po it in some overtime… “lazy asshole”
In short, today’s females are broken losers.
Fucka A
“The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish tears it down with her own hands.” – Proverbs 14:1
❥◐●◐❥◐◍❤●◐❥ Join it , Now….its Real And Trustable.. MAKE M0NEY AT Your H0ME 88$ pr H0UR.✯. Marina . although Ashley `s report is terrific, on tuesday I got a great Lotus Carlton after having made USD 6753 this-past/five weeks an would you believe ten-grand last-m0nth . without a doubt its the best-work Ive ever done . I started this 6 months ago and pretty much straight away was bringing h0me at least USD 83 per/hr ….
For more Information Open this…
➧➧➧➧ https://www.JoinWork/PartTimeJ0bs.C0m
☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏☏
Your first choice rooshv Find Here
✣✤✥❋✣✤✥❋77$/hour I saw the bank draft that said [email protected]
e……
➡➡➡➡ https://www.BestOffers/NewSkills/GlobalJobs.C0m
❊❤❇❈❊❤❉❊❤❥❊❤❊❤❊❤❊❤❊❤❊❤❊❤
WellCome Our Community rooshvv Get Work Online
Wrong. The system had been built and created to corrupt the vessel. Try pouring the purest water in a dirty cup and that water will stagnate. You’re taking advantage of these sluts and then claiming it’s their fault. It’s the system that turned what once was an extension of a man’s pride, “more precious than rubies”. Stop promoting false flag reasoning
its very informative.
It’s All About You o o s h < Make It Easy
………………1=39Now Get this rooshv
45 likes + the original poster. 46 men who have convinced themselves the opposite sex is responsible for all their hangups – because they are too cowardly to face their own insecurities and fears.
Should work out quite well though. These are immature, shallow men who don’t seem to like women at all. Since this comes through loud and clear, they will never, ever have to worry about one of those wretched woman invading their life. Ever.
So cheer up guys! You will be alone forever – no problemo!
I guarantee we can all fuck a female with ease. It’s not hard at all, thats kinda the point we are making. It’s ok just whore out marry a guy when your looks decline and then divorce him and destroy your family. Then proceed to blame the man and demonize and campaign against him until your precious enraged bastards slaughter him.
Let’s add it up
1. No contact with children,
2. demonized to your children
3. loss of property and 80% of income for years after divorce
All of this for women who are scientifically proven to be the most promiscuous and also the most obese, that is the worst combination from any man’s perspective. Who wants to have your children hate you and no visitation, lose 80%of income for an obese whore… no thanks
You choose hate and contempt, you get hate and contempt in return – it’s a vicious cycle, isn’t it? Choose to respect, you’ll get respect in return. Cause and effect – it really is that simple. Love feels so much better than hate, you should try it sometime.
Well, listen to you. Why would anyone who respects themselves – man or woman – want to associate with a whiny crybaby like you? Grow up, take responsibility for your own emotional happiness, stop expecting women to prop you up and stop blaming them when they can’t fill that empty hole of yours inside. The planet is culling the herd of men-who-act-like-babies-but-want-to-be-treated-like-kings. Haven’t you noticed? Evolve or die, as they say. The choice is yours.
If you believe that, you’re as stupid as the guy who wrote this ridiculous article.
Precisely, but they will still blame men.
If it was something that men had done to women, then the same principles would be at work sixty, and one hundred years ago. We would not be living in unprecedented times where many women try to wear (or not wear) their sexual value on the street.
It was very obvious in the mid eighties when the fashion for women was to wear underwear as outerwear in the manner of Madonna.
However if you set the tone as a man, they will not be that way correct? So keep treating them as oil wells and they will be that. There js so much hypocrisy here its ridiculous.
(((liberal media)))) is
You’re not sure if this is a better way to live than the past? Who are you trying to kid?
Better for the hedonist in the short term. Worse for humanity AND the hedonists in the long run.
To be fair, we tend to see the past through rose colored glasses. Yes, men got married, had kids, and generally stayed married for life way back when. But were they truly happier? Were women? If they were, *everyone* would have fought tooth and nail against social change. Instead, the opposite happened and people, especially women, were all to eager to dismantle the old paradigm.
I have a feeling that the percentage of couples who were truly happily married generations ago is roughly the same as today. And I would peg that number at somewhere around 20%. The other 80% of married couples just suffer through decades of malaise and bitterness (in generations past) or get divorced (today).
People deceived themselves into thinking they knew better and could change human nature. Now most of them are fucked.
Technology aided the acceleration of human nature’s evolution, the froth we see is what’s bubbled to the top. Women acted similarly 20-30 years ago but now they’ve become notably more efficient.
Not to get Biblical but if God represent order, what we see here is chaos. Yet the most natural order is to allow the chaos to dissolve societal components into their most granular form. This is what I feel we see occurring now. A revelation of the truth so to speak.
According to the Bible, God represents love.
” Yes, men got married, had kids, and generally stayed married for life way back when. But were they truly happier? Were women?”
I hear what your saying but common sense says that there is an emptiness that men are feeling with today’s females that men in previous generations did not feel.
Yes, I agree that male-female relations are worse today, especially for men and mostly due to the unleashed hypergamy and solipsism of women.
My only point was that the past might have indeed been *better* but far from the idealized, blissful image we tend to have of it.
My great grandmother used to read 3 books per week, and there weren’t no 50 Shades back then. Shame I never met her
yes, but did she have an iphone?
No, but she would have been able to compile a respectable ‘friends’ list from the 11 kids running around the house. I had to consider what your question meant for a while, and you’re right – distractions in the form of screens and earphones are rendering people unable to concentrate or do anything much worthwhile for themselves. When I think of the degree of decline, I just can’t even… construct or verbalise a coherent and well-thought out sentence.
I think they were happier.
Happiness comes, goes, comes again, goes, while contentment lasts. If you are contented you are well enough satisfied with the status quo to not be constantly looking for something new and better.
Doesn’t mean you can’t be seeking improvements. Just that it shouldn’t be your driving force in life.
So you shouldn’t strive for a better life ? Looks while you were busy being content life passed you by
Every generation is born thinking it knows better than those who came before them, and that the rules of life don’t apply to them. The natural inclination for hedonism is enough override any inclination to learn from the past, if left unguided.
You would have a point if the change happened in a decade,but it was gradual, more like a century. Moreover women are never happy or even contented, hence they don´t count (and even then all surveys on the matter reveal women were happier then, 50 years ago than now). The men were proud and since Christian belief was like a rotten tree (as far as the masses were concerned) when the West entered the 20th century, the time was fit for ignoring the wisdom of the ancients.
Maybe the question shouldn’t be: “where they happier”.
Maybe the question should be: “were we as a culture better off”
One of the depravities of modern day culture is this idea that the only thing that matters is one’s happiness. Our obsession, nay I say addiction, with/to it is a real problem today.
The people of Russia rose up against the Czar, and supported the Communists for the promise of “Bread, Peace, Land”. How did that work out? Feminists led women from a benevolent dictatorship to a totalitarian nightmare. They have not figured out freedom. Perhaps they can’t.
Yes they were ‘truly happier’, see any research done about happiness and you will see these last generations of women are the most miserable.
It’s almost as if feminism was a plot psychologists to make careers for themselves. I used to think that it was to increase government power, meaning the oligarchic elites, but I’m beginning to think it’s both.
Conspiracy, quick tell the papers!
I agree. It’s way better today! As long as you don’t live in a EN/GE/SCAN country.
Yea but we do…
Then move the hella out dum head! Just like roosh has and just like i have. And the thing is he is talking about all girls, not us girls. Thats where he’s wrong.
You do. I moved my ass. Maybe you should think about following suite or quit whining.
Depreciated assets with diminished to no returns. The bottom line for companies applies equally to women.
Great job feminism. You “won”.
Great job J.E.W.$. You mean.
J oint
E nterprise for
W estern
S LAVERY
Oh well then that proves it: other religions implicate “these people”.
His first sentence has the potential to be objective and logical, but religion blinkers can immediately proceed to render the viewpoints subjective.
“Great jog J.E.W &….” What is logical about this sentence? It’s a nonsensical assertion and nothing more..
It looked like it could be potentially logical, like when you’re watching a movie and the plotline could be imagined to be realistic, but then it unravelled into he said she said.
You know what’s funny? People whine and moan, wars are waged, millions are killed – over something they can’t touch, they can’t feel, they can’t taste, they can’t hear, they didn’t personally experience. aka their THOUGHTS.
There is no one to blame for your miserable life but you. Grow up and deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1V5Pi0e954 roosh v attacked in montreal
A grown-up blames no one but himself for his situation. You are a baby. A big, big, whiny baby.
Agreed, but it’s a good idea to sack up and/or get snipped so she doesn’t suddenly says “oops, it’s yours”.
does it hurt to get a vasectomy?
I hear their modern techniques they are a lot more reversible too
if that’s the case I’ll probably get one
The actual procedure is done under anesthesia, so it’s painless. There is some tenderness for 7-10 days after, but it’s not really pain so much as just sore. The important thing to remember is that it takes almost a year to be 100% sure that you are shooting blanks.
Nope. 3 months maximum. I have done this.
Well, there you go. I was told a year to be on the safe side, though obviously it is pretty easy to test.
Not usually done under anerhetics actually and only takes 6 weeks to be sure of results. I’ve never heard of men being put under for this and I’ve worked in health care for a while.
Painless and reversible vasectomies that lasts 10 years should be available in 2018 if everything goes well. Currently in monkey tests stage.
The pain is already small, and ivf is an option, should you want a kid later. Today’s vasectomy allows men to be almost as sexually irresponsible as women.
Vasectomy is very the definition of sexual responsibility if your objective is to avoid burdening society with shiftless single mother-addled, public school-reared bastard spawn.
Think of each failed conception as one fewer future carjacker and/or welfare queen.
Or just an opportunity to bang raw dog, because you like it.
Just watch out for the STD’s/STI’s that today’s skanky harlots carry with them!
Unless they’re also being banged in the ass by men-who-like-men-inside-them, you should generally, and statistically be ok. Nothing life threatening .. and little reason to refrain from consistently blasting deep within then.
When women realise they don’t need to use a condom with you, it’s consistently surprising how many will willingly invitie a virtual stranger in, raw.
The sluts they are.
You’re talking about “banging” people without a condom and you are calling other people sluts?
Sluts are empowered to express themselves, and are un-repressed by the misogynistic judgement of the patriarchy.
After all, it’s her body, and her choice as to what where when and how she puts things inside it.
Essentially a term of endearment.
No way, I air dry.
time consuming, but ladylike. you’ll go far kiddo.
lol
“Agreed, but it’s a good idea to sack up and/or get snipped so she doesn’t suddenly says “oops, it’s yours” ”
She could still get knocked up by someone else but say “oops its yours” and immediately start extorting your cash. Many courts will not permit a paternity test, and even if you are allowed a test and prove you are not the father, the judge will laugh right in your face as the hammer comes down and you end up paying for the cunt.
i have no knowledge regarding western countries’ justice systems but surely the logic is, mildly speaking, flawed. how do they justify this? or has nobody asked the question?
In France for sure (and a few other countries I am too lazy to google) paternity tests are indeed ILLEGAL! So they have essentially institutionalized cuckoldry via the powers of the state.
How do they justify this? With some bullshit “expert” opinion that biology doesn’t matter when it comes to fatherhood.
Laws like those in France just goes to show that there is no limit to how far you can oppress and disrespect men – just so long as the beneficiary are women. Men just won’t revolt.
Women will not voluntarily give up their “freedom”.
It must be taken from them.
By sheer psychodynamic domination, By that, I mean force.
On that point you are 100% correct. Women are nature. Men tame, dominate, and regulate nature. It’s always been so.
Right now the weeds have been allowed to grow on the cleared pasture land, and at this point we can either let it revert to jungle, or start gettin’ out dem lawnmowers.
Well, they certainly try to, with mixed results. The fact is, the women you are meeting are a direct reflection of they type of man you are. If all you are attracting is wretched, grasping, lying, 2-faced manipulators, it’s time to take a good look in the mirror. Like attracts like. Do you think these women don’t see your ‘bang em and leave ’em game? Sure they do, and they’re playing you for it.
You can’t reason with ignorant cavemen.
All religions, including Christianity, include wisdom – they know that men need to lead the household for a stable and fair society.
What we have is an anti-God society, and it started with usurious banking and militant feminazi-ism.
And how are you tryiging to do it?
You cant.
You’re advocating for outright physical violence against women. There’s no way to take the freedom of anybody (not just women) without the use of physical force or threat to use such force.
Stop wining about the consequences of freedom, and then advocating to take what you want by force. It’s pathetic and weak. It’s not alpha, it’s beta loser big times!
Where? Where does it say “physical violence”? He means that men should stand up to women instead of letting them just do whatever the hell they want.
Because the only to way to “force ” someone to do what you want is to get physical.
come take it.
She is a commodity, and the bang has become transactional. Relationships are no longer long term investments, to grow and nurture, but rather, relationships with “empowered” women are about a little coaxing and salesmanship to keep the deal alive … and the well wet …
And men have reduced themselfs to complaining little bitches
No, we haven’t. We are oil prospectors. Read the text again.
(Her reading comprehension skills are lacking)
no
Ok. You know best honey. Btw, what are you wearing?
Of course I know best that is obvious. And I”m wearing suit and a tie at this moment, thank you for asking.
That sounds like very smart outfit, but a little bit masculine. Perhaps you have a very important job, hard worker.
Already a professional, eh? I guess your carousel ride is over or approaching its end.
I can only read text made by complaining little bitch
Someone’s mad that we figured out the hustle…
no
We don’t hate the players, we just hate the game.
Players decide the rules of the games, so hating the rules of the game means hating the player
Sorry but I had to comment on this. What the fuck. This is a dead conversation but what the fuck? Are you drunk or high? That isn’t even an abstract and radical concept like Occam’s Razor or Camus’ Absurdism, its using words normally used to convey ideas to make insane and incomprehensible gibberish. Even if your bizarre statements were diluted down to the benign and taken literally, how do the people following rules by default create them? You sound a lot like a Jewish shabbos shill but might be so good at it you also sound like a stupid woman trying to dun do sum logic.
Whatever
Precisely. Men have denied women their God-given rights to learn and earn a living, in an effort to make women dependent on whatever crumbs they felt like giving. Women have seized their own power and will continue to do so. There are plenty of happy, healthy, and satisfied women looking for a loving partner to share a life. Guys on here who want to use women for their own ends will find themselves being used by women. Then they become whiny little bitches because they’re game didn’t play out the way they envisioned. Gamesplayers attract gamesplayers. if you want something else, give up the game.
Well said.
According to the bible, God wants women to submit to wishes of her husband. In turn the man submits to God. Now what God given right are your referring to whore?
“Gamesplayers attract gamesplayers”
Yup. Karma’s a heartless bitch.
Typical shaming tactic from a masculine whore
Oh good grief! Now this is the complete disconnect I so often see in the manosphere.
“Women have reduced themselves to sexual commodities.”…..”We should view them as oil wells that can provide a commodity that healthy men need to function properly: sex.”
How did women go about this reducing of ourselves, through spontanious combustion? In a complete vacuum? Of course not, there is a cause and effect at play here. Men benefit tremendously from treating women as sexual commodities, all the sex they want and no responsibility. Men have helped to encourage and promote the modern woman. Women often act in reflection to men, we respond to the expectations placed on us. Traditional women, women who seek marriage, family, are often relentlessly mocked by both men and women and the popular culture at large.
I am not attempting to blame and shame men here, it’s simply that reason and common sense have got to lead some to at least recognize the symbiosis of the gender relationship and how it shapes culture. Or not I suppose. Common sense does seem to be in short supply.
I agree, men have played a role in this. Stupid and disempowering to place all the blame on women.
Incentives matter. Most of the reason that men treat women like commodities is that the more a man treats women like puss life-support systems, the more women like him.
There are men out there who want to treat women like actual fellow human beings, but unless they’ve other phenomenal characteristics to counteract that, they’re usually frozen out of the sexual market.
Argue about how men should be until you’re blue in the face (and even perhaps be right about it), human nature is what it is, and men will do what gets them laid. Being a bastard gets them laid. Only women learning to control their own baser instincts (or society doing it for them) will change that.
“Being a bastard gets them laid. Only women learning to control their
own baser instincts (or society doing it for them) will change that.”
All in good humor here, but how do you suppose women learn to control “their baser instincts?” The truth of the matter is we are followers, not leaders. We follow men’s lead, we follow the cultures lead, we follow feminism.
Men actually have to also control their baser instincts or else women have no reason to control their own. Men really have to pave the path there and it isn’t exactly fair, but it is what it is.
In short: men in politics and the media have to (re)create a conservative society (without religion), and push constructive ideals that will make both men and women act more rationally than their baser instincts would.
The only reason “women have no reason to control their own” is that they’re societally encouraged not to do so, when they should be discouraged like everyone else. Hint: divorce laws, lack of constructive slut shaming in popular culture (shamelessness), celebrating female careerism over motherhood, etc.
No matter how long you guys argue over this, it all comes down to one broad thing: leading men of society need to restore what they’ve fucked up, dismissing feminists ruthlessly in the process.
@Martel
Even most men need these two things (i.e. leaders) to act rationally, so we can’t expect women to control their instincts. Society (leaders) have to do it for them. They are called overgrown kids for a reason.
“[M]en in politics and the media have to (re)create a conservative society
(without religion), and push constructive ideals that will make both men
and women act more rationally than their baser instincts would.”
Women have the occasional non-religious reason to keep from sleeping around (instinctual aversion to being seen as a slut, lowered MMV, etc.), but there’s very little to keep men in line without religion. (Unless we return to shotgun weddings and duels.)
“[L]eading men of society need to restore what they or their predecessors fucked up, dismissing feminists ruthlessly in the process.”
I’m with you here, but part of that is such “leading men” telling women to get their crap together.
I think cultural regression via media would solve that (if women are slut-shamed, alphas have a harder time slutifying them, etc. etc.), but maybe it’s just me. Either way, it seems like a long and complicated topic.
Our ancestors failed us by doing as Adam did when faced with rebellion…….they acquiesced for a temporary and illusory peace. We must learn to do the opposite.
If a woman controls her baser sexual instincts, she’ll find tons of guys still vying for her. Maybe she won’t “find herself” as much in her twenties, but she can hit the jackpot in terms of finding a man.
If a man controls his baser instincts, he’ll be an unwanted inexperienced virgin in whom very few women take an interest. Yes, he can make up for this to an extent by being an Alpha in other ways (most women would bang Tim Tebow even though he’s a virgin), but “sexual virtue” is a benefit to woman and usually a detriment to men. Moreover, a sexually virtuous woman is one of strength and restraint. A sexually virtuous man is usually one who can’t get any and tries to put a good spin on it.
That said, even though women have more incentives to be virtuous, I’ll concede it IS exceptionally difficult. That’s why families need to train them better and keep watch. Our role as men is to make it clear we won’t “man up and marry those sluts.” Women and girls with foresight will catch on, those without it won’t, but there’s only so much single men can do.
A lot of this is structural, the man of centuries past, looked strong, powerful and necessary to your average woman. Not so today. Society must be ordered in such a way as to make him look as appealing as possible, and the bad boy, as unappealing as possible.
I don’t understand how this is supposed to work. In heterosexual relationships if women just stop having sex to claim or reclaim their “virtue” who exactly are the men supposed to gain all this sexual experience with? By force? With each other? At some point the double standard becomes a logistical burden…
Ive always wondered that too. I think they should have sex with each other.
They should have sex and get it over with.
I agree that men have played a part in the social decline, but I can’t agree that it’s up to men to pave the path. We, as women, used to be expected to be the moral compass of society. It was a role that we accepted. If a man wanted sex, we said ‘no’ until we received the proper amount of commitment. We kept the wheels turning.
Nowadays, girls will drunkenly open their legs for any stud at the bar. The man has no incentive to commit. My thinking is, ifbwe changed our behavior and encouraged our daughters to do the same, society would eventually go back to something similar to what it used to be.
Then again, I’m an optimist who thinks this rampant nazi-style feminism is just a phase. One can hope.
“We, as women, used to be expected to be the moral compass of society.”
No. Women weren’t expected to do anything except shame each other into compliance with the male imperative: civilization-building assortative monogamous pairings.
For their efforts, they were rewarded with uninterrupted provisioning and surviving descendants. They lived well, while the proto-feminist renegades starved.
But women as moral authorities to anyone but toddlers? LOL! Hold on, let me take a look at my library. Let’s see… “Code of Belatsunat”… no… the “Gospel according to Caitlyn”… no… “Dialectics of Helen”… no… wait, wait, here’s some Ayn Rand. Nah, total slut, derivative; would skim, would not bang.
Whoa there buddy! Since you clearly seem to be in the “anger” phase of swallowing the red pill, I’ll rephrase:
It has always been the obligation of women, not men, to say “no” to promiscuous sex. Men have always had the goal of bedding as many women as they could; it’s simple biology. However, it has always been up to the woman to resist the urge and to say “no” until receiving the socially accepted level of commitment.
Nowadays, women are saying “yes” more and more often, when they should be saying “no”. Feminist mothers are telling their daughters not to settle down too soon, and to go out there and “experience life”. Therefore, as the article is saying, women are reducing themselves to sexual recepticals and nothing more.
I was agreeing with the article. All I am saying is that it is up to women to fix the problem. We need to get back to a society where mothers teach their daughters not to be slutty cum dumpsters.
It’s the truth. Your history is distorted. Men hammer out the moral framework, active; women assume its shape, passive. Not the other way around.
This fallacy is at the core of the feminist erosion of the institutions. The rise of “Churchianity,” the ascendancy of “Social Justice,” many of the ills you complain about.
When it comes to shaming your sisters and daughters, have at it. Unfortunately, you are decades too late.
(Don’t try to control the discourse with shaming, please. It’s unbecoming. Save it for other women.)
I see your point. Wouldn’t it at least help, though, if the majority of women got back onboard?
Maybe I’m too optimistic; but I know there are plenty of women out there who hate the feminist/SJW agenda as much as I do. Maybe things can still change?
Hmmm, women have been drinking the Kool-Aid for 50 years, with almost three generations of women drinking deeply of the poison. I am in my mid sixties and have only ever met one woman who admitted to having made a mistake. I married her. So good luck on having your grandmother and/or mother openly admitting that they had really buggered up big time.
Luckily I come from decent stock. My grandmother (rest her soul) loved my grandfather intensely, and when he became paralyzed in an accident she completely took care of him and supported the family for decades. After he passed, she said she would gladly take him back the way he was. Never remarried.
My mother and father are highschool sweethearts. Separated for a bit when they were young, but have been married now almost 30 years.
Maybe that’s why I have hope.
Fair enough, I removed my comments. You have reason for hope, and I wish you well. Unicorns exist, but they are damned few and far between. I married the only one that I ever met ;-D
I agree with you completely – there are way fewer quality women than trashy women these days. That is indeed apparent! I just try to be optimistic and hope that the few can be a catalyst for real change
I wish the best to you and your wife! I love hearing stories like yours!
Sadly, my late wife passed away a little more than two years ago. There is one less unicorn, but being raised Christian she always had faith. While I was always a doubting Thomas, but she trusted me because I owned a well used Bible in my collection. Which being female, she promptly pinched for our nearly 45 years together.
Sometimes you have to laugh at the foibles within the human condition ;-D
If you are happily married, then why are you on this forum? Hmmmm, bet you won’t stay married for long.
I am a widower.
Well amen to that. Lead the charge sister
“would skim, would not bang” Hey that’s a new twist!
Wait, what? Women didn’t live well with uninterrupted provisioning and surviving descents….Men didn’t live all that well either. You guys on this forum are totally out of touch with what life was like in any parts of the past. During the ages of conquering, raping and pillaging……most of you guys would have had a difficult time obtaining much of anything. You would have been the brain-washed foot soldiers helping greater men achieve. Some of you may have obtained a bit, but not for long as disease, death and other men would be very quick to take it away.
Fast-forward to the times of our great-grandparents. Their lives weren’t so great. One set of my great-grandparents, for example, were married as teens. Both worked hard ( even though most of my great-grandmother’s work was not income-producing, both slaved away nonstop). They had a ridiculous amount of children. Saw most succumb to diseases (which we now have vaccines for). He died at the ripe old age of 30. With a newborn at the time, she made extra income as a wet-nurse, and then later with odd-jobs. Who would envy that sort of life? Then, take my grandparents. Both of my grandfathers slaved away and died in their 40’s. Is that the life that you are envying? Obviouscly neither wife was gifted with uninterrupted provisioning…..
Anyway, due to birth-control, sex does not automatically mean children as it did in the past. This means that both men and women are less likely to be stuck in “survival mode” and stuck slaving away just to minimally care for their offspring. In addition to less children, modern conveniences that make household chores simple and faster allow women more time not having to spend on those chores, and allow men to not have to need someone else to do those chores for them. These are the reasons that people are marrying later, more likely to divorce, more likely to stay single.
So, yes, there are plusses and minuses. Today’s world is not perfect, but it is a lot better than the past Hopefully will continue to evolve.
Hah, I’ve always figured that by the time feminism gets thrown into the dustbin of history, women will blame men for its existence and foisting it upon women…
… and here we are.
Women have ALWAYS blamed everything on men.
Can’t get a job swinging a sledgehammer? Men’s fault.
Women didn’t invent ANYTHING in history? Men’s fault.
Women never explored ANYWHERE on earth? Men’s fault.
Prostitution? Men’s fault.
Single mothers supporting their bastard spawn by dancing with a pole? Men’s fault.
Faked 1 in 4 rapes on campus myth? Men’s fault.
Menstruation? Men’s fault.
Bra straps uncomfortable? Men’s fault.
Feminism? That will be men’s fault too.
It’s been this way since at least Potiphar’s Wife falsely accused Joseph of rape.
It’s been this way since Adam and eve
But Joseph actually refused the woman and suffered the consequences……like a man.
Do we really have to say it yet again……..
apex. fallacy.
We should have it plastered at the top of every page, or perhaps as an auto-response to every woman’s comment.
“the popular culture at large”
This is the key bit. I’d say feminists and their white knights are who reduced women to sexual commodities. They are the ones influencing popular culture in a malicious way.
If you say “women themselves” did it, you forget the fact that most women are just influenced sheep in the game of feminism. And you also forget about their enablers: the white knights. Without these “men”, feminism would be nowhere. If we want to end feminism, they are main group to focus on. No white knight enablers (i.e. male support) = no influence for feminism.
I see what you’re getting at. However the agents involved in undermining traditional femininity did so by merely unleashing latent characteristics of women which had until then been safely corralled. Women then degraded themselves and their position in society by their own free will, in which sense Roosh’s title is largely correct. Whether or not they were aided and abetted makes little difference and thus a general description of the process aka the title of the article needn’t take that into account. Those provocateurs merely hastened the stampede; the ultimate direction was and remains always the same: totally unrestrained female hypergamy.
“How did women go about this reducin of ourselves, through spontanious combustion?”
Women became little more than lubricated holes, when they stopped
banging gallant men.
Now they prefer to bang bad boys, clowns, and guys who tease them.
=> Oil commodity.
Yeh, even the ‘good chaste’ ones get wet with all the most useless men. The women and men are society destroyers who exist solely due to bankers $ (which is soon to disappear, job’s almost done). They don’t exist because they are so great.
Yes. I too blame men. We stopped lovingly spanking and caning our wives. Its all our faults.
Yes , violence had brought so much good in this world.
“Men have helped to encourage and promote the modern woman. Women often act in reflection to men, we respond to the expectations placed on us.”
I agree with this, but feminism isn’t just a cultural movement. It’s a movement that pushes governments towards excessive liberalism.
Men are no longer in a financial or legal position to lead society at all. If you removed all the legal privileges of women I suspect things might balance out at least a little bit. But men can’t even laugh at jokes anymore without fear of losing their job. No one takes a man seriously unless he has some modicum of power, and our society measures power and value on the ruler of financial success.
It’s not as simple as you’re saying in your comment.
Years of gradual media de-manipulation would change that. So yeah, it’s not simple and it would take time, but it could be done. People were manipulated into this mentality slowly and gradually, so all we’d have to do is reverse the media slowly and gradually. Society would change in general, and maybe old people (today’s young and early middle-aged) would be the only ones sharing feminist views – but they would be just dismissed, like today’s “racist” old people.
Not just media, but the companies that pay media. So you’d basically be asking ALL large companies that feed the capitalism machine to reduce things like sexual images and innuendos in commercials, as well as TV and movie scripts, etc. to all stop. That would be one tall ass order. You were right saying the slowly and gradually part. Individuals biggest problems stem from having no ability to scale their scope of reasoning to expand to 3-5-10-20-30 years in recognition. If suddenly every girl instantly became peak slut, you’d have an outcry, but over the course of a decade no one does shit to stop it.
Exactly. We could only reverse it gradually as well, but with enough people in the media, politics and some culturally influential companies I think it could be done. The main problem is the manpower… not enough “red-pill” people, especially for big countries like the US.
They are enabled by society to destroy the family unit etc.. – which will result in their own destruction.
You are not an independent person. Everything you own was made by a foreign slave. Feminism was used to globalise the western economy and bring massive profits to bankers. Also, it heled bring in two incomes for bankers and destroy the family.
Now the bankers will remove their cash soon, and turn you into a real sex slave, or worse. It is the unfortunate truth.
“. Men benefit tremendously from treating women as sexual commodities, all the sex they want and no responsibility. Men have helped to encourage and promote the modern woman. ”
Women have choices. Nobody is forcing them to be virtueless whores. Roosh is simply stating this is how it is. Do yeah they will be used as sex because that is all they offer. There is no changing them back into quality women anymore.
Everyone here knows men have played a role as well as women. BUT, the final behavioral decisions are performed and implemented by women. Why? Otherwise legitimate rape would be occurring all over the place. It’s not, in fact real rape cases have dropped dramatically in the past 40 years. To absolve half a race, an entire gender which statistically proves with divorce rates et al, to be the greater culprit, is total bullshit. Fix the problem at it’s source, but simultaneously limit the support net by hopefully converting some blue pill guys (who’re likely partially white knights at heart), to red pill, then to neomasculine behavior.
I hate to say this, but she’s absolutely right in this case. And this article is completely bogus.
Women did do it to themselves, through believing more of pop culture than traditionalism. Violence is on TV everywhere, but most guys don’t go killing people. Rampant casual sex is on TV, and girls DO go out to have their own reality tv like moments. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and they’ve started letting the gates down because tv and music says to. Thats pretty weak. What if I just went and killed people because Dexter did?
Women didn’t even HAVE to do it. I’ve been with 30+ women by 30, but all I’ve wanted since about 22 was a chick to appreciate me, respect me, and not fuck with my ego. But they cant. So we break up, and I go and fuck another 5 girls until I find one that seems like she wants to try and be serious. And then she fucks it all up, so I do another 5 randoms. All it would take would be for a girl to be dedicated to some purpose and stick with it.. and realize that Friday night girls nights out till 2am aren’t helping us. But back to single life and hookups I go because she couldn’t help herself.
Well said. That men stick to their morals and don’t just go along with whatever media figures are doing in fantasy worlds is further evidence that men can handle bangs with multiple women, while women who have multiple sex partners are permanently damaged.
I spoke with a couple of girls over the weekend, who lamented that statistically, marriage actually makes women more unhappy than being single. When pressed on this, one of them said the sacrifice a woman must make in her career by marrying a man is too great. But wouldn’t the positive benefits of marriage, like motherhood, financial support, and love outweigh the minor hit to a career? No, she said.
In my interactions with women I’ve found they often don’t know what they want, or what makes them happy, so I think they are turning to things like their careers, or to hooking up with multiple guys, or doing drugs or whatever the current trend or meme is, because someone else is telling them it will make them happy. The sad part is, none of these things will, and hence they become even more unhappy when chasing these dreams.
Now, as a man, I can try to tell her that being kind and caring and loving and nurturing and eventually becoming a wife or mother will make her happy, but the problem is, by the time I interact with them, they are slutted up so badly that they are damaged goods, so this is really a role for society or government to play. The “repressive” cultures of the Mideast and Asia look better each day.
“I spoke with a couple of girls over the weekend, who lamented that statistically, marriage actually makes women more unhappy than being single. When pressed on this, one of them said the sacrifice a woman must make in her career by marrying a man is too great. But wouldn’t the positive benefits of marriage, like motherhood, financial support, and love outweigh the minor hit to a career? No, she said.”
They ALL have that same attitude…just as they are young, hot, and can ride The Carousel.
When they are no longer wanted by the Bad Boys, are pushed off the Carousel and smack into The Wall, their attitude changes 180 degrees and they loudly wail about the lack of the “Good Men*” (who they didn’t want). Which is why I finally stopped caring and walked away from them over thirty years ago.
*I find the articles about women like these endlessly hilarious — mainly because they are complaining about not having the very things (husband, children, family, etc.) that they said they didn’t even want, to begin with! Cognitive Dissonance, thy name is ‘woman’!
haha, you’re obviously the failure here. No one wants you.
“Traditional women, women who seek marriage, family, are often relentlessly mocked by both men and women and the popular culture at large.”
But that’s simply not true.
It was feminists and their helpers who mocked (and continue to mock) such women.
No man would, becuase to do so would be to mock one’s mothers and desired future wife.
So i ask, Cui bono? This is an acceleration of western decline, i.e broken families, low birth rates, aging hedonistic population looking for fun in third world countries, the list goes on and on. Who profits from this ? Look, feminazis aren`t acting on their own, they`re too stupid and short sighted. Someone somewhere is pulling the strings.
These are the general effects/benefits:
1. Gradual population decline
2. Mass control of population
3. Cultural decay/intellectual degeneration
Now, who would want that?
Liberals.
Liberals = are often Jews, especially the ones heading movements.
btw
Charlie Hebdo = taken over by rothschilds (evil jew bankers) one month before the terrorist event which saved their flagging sales.
can’t criticise jews, even when you’re jewish and make the boyfriend joke, like lena dunham.
we didn’t go to was vs syria, so hey presto – ISIS appears two months later.
run by mossad.
One thing I’ll admit is that of those in the middle class that I know personally, it’s only my Jewish friends that are getting married.
Despite the fact that they constantly talk about freedom, and diversity, and are always behind the most recent “isms”, they are the ones who fall back to their families and traditional lifestyles.
Everyone else is confused as fuck (except recent immigrants) and have no hope of getting organized. The Asians also seem to know what they’re doing, but they don’t talk as much from both sides of their mouths. They know the score.
What are you, some kind of silly conspiracy theorist?
In any case, just make sure you pay no attention to the hook-nosed merchant gleefully rubbing his hands together or you might get labeled a “Neo-Nazi bot” …
i hate the nazis of this world. Who, ironically, happen to be jewish.
These Godless people are manipulative and your post would’ve receied more upvotes, but they regulate the voting as they control most of the internet and especially its software.
I’d say its as simple as democracy. Who benefits? The elected politicians who live for the short term. They can promise things to a group that is 50% of the electorate and ensure power and wealth for the next 6 years. Who loses? The society and everyone else.
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1410/46/1410463727619.jpg
Thart’s not right.
Religious Jews tend to be very much opposed to such destructive movements. Look at the conflicts over women in Israel.
Opposed to destructive movements for themselves. In favor of them for the goyim.
Are there any men who enjoy the company of women before and after sex? Also, how were you absolutely certain that this Polish girl was in the middle of the carraus
I’m starting to wonder if there isn’t something akin to a woman’s ovulation cycle in men where they are more or less attracted to certain types of women at certain times. It’s my personal belief that the stronger a relationship a man has with his mother, the more likely he is to look for “good girls.”
I also think women should learn to rise above the feeling of abandonment when a man loses interest after sex and realize that he can’t biologically help those feelings. His “mission” is complete. That is why premarital sex destroys relationship and should be avoided.
“It’s my personal belief that the stronger a relationship a man has with his mother, the more likely he is to look for “good girls.””
I’ve always thought the flipside of that is also true e.g. women with fathers preferring good guys and/or not preferring bad boys.
No such thing as a good girl
explain all the women who came from loving families that are ex carousel riders alone and depressed at 46.
You think women should learn?
Women never learn!
“how were you absolutely certain that this Polish girl was in the middle of the carousel ride”
its called game and years of experience…but your pea sized brain cannot grasp that
Why the need to resort to insults? Let me rephrase, how is this knowledge and experience not able to get a young woman off the carousel? This is where Consumerism, feminism and egotistical tendencies come in. So I guess love is dead. But is the dream of love dead as well?
you have to stop living that fairytale fantasy and start living in the real practical world.
Game isn’t designed to get women off the carousel. Its designed to able to fuck girls with minimum investment (from the guys pov) and to keep them for long term (if she is worth it)
Aren’t you contradicting yourself? How can you keep the worthy ones for long term if they’re still on the carousel?
she isn’t worthy if she is on the carousel in the first place..
you do have a pea sized brain/
So get them before they jump on the carousel. Say around 18? Then dumb yourself down to their level and be happy. Shit! I’m barely beginning to grasp the fucked up situation men are in. I feel my pea expanding. Thank you.
I always hit on girls between 15-20.
I do fuck the ones above 20-25 but don’t really look forward to anything long term with them. unlike you most of us here are sorted after the red pill.
it’s funny women always insult young women as being ‘stupid’ or ‘naive’ etc…
the ‘dumb yourself down to their level’ is pretty insulting to them.
same way feminists always insult stay at home moms.
Good point. Young women don’t have to be dumb but they are immature and lack the wisdom that only comes through experience. However, this doesn’t imply that older women are wise or aren’t dumb. Older men would have to overlook some immaturity when dealing with young women if they wish to enjoy their company.
“Older men would have to overlook some immaturity when dealing with young women if they wish to enjoy their company.”
What’s wrong with that?
And the good strategy is to find the good carousel riders just for fucking, and find any good girls for marriage (or with these abusive laws, long-term relationship).
Nothing is wrong with that.
I don’t understand why a man would want to have sex with the carousel riders, though. Isn’t it gross? Aren’t you guys worried about diseases? Promiscuity is just disgusting to me, male or female. I feel like people who have had a lot of partners are kind of dirty or polluted somehow. I wouldn’t even want to share a straw with them, let alone insert any part of their anatomy into mine.
Exactly, this is why I avoid men. I will go on around 2 dates, but then drop them. 2 dates is not nearly enough to sleep with someone, but pretty much all men expect that. Nope. Not happening. Men are disgusting.
Eek! What happened to all that stuff about neomasculinity?
Off-topic but within days of releasing her porn video, the world has lost interest. The usual femrag journalists are avoiding it like rotten fish. Truly she is the embarassing product of feminism. What is Sulcowicz going to do next for her attention-fix? Spectacular though dreary suicide likely.
I already forgot about that bitch.
“What is Sulcowicz going to do next for her attention-fix?”
Public office. Party Mattress 2016.
Sulcwhich who?
In this case, you’re actually er.. filling the er… reservoir…by emptying yours
“Not long ago men used to make houses, but now we’re oil prospectors,
emptying the reservoir of one well before inevitably moving on, and I’m
not sure if this is a better way for us to live than men of the past”
It is not a better way to live than the “men of the past,” but it is certainly a powerful deception. What man would not love unlimited sexual access, no responsibility, no need to really toil away to make houses? Not only that, he is somewhat free from the burden of honor, or any concerns along the lines of sexual shame. He is footloose and fancy free. It is not good for individual men however, nor is it good for society as a whole.
That is not judgment or criticism, it is just that hidden among all the complaints and bemoaning about the horror of modern womanhood, is a real longing for what once was. Men were designed to build and innovate, to seek intimacy with women, not just sex, but connection and relationship, and to produce children. There are huge spiritual and emotional needs that do not get fulfilled in our modern redesign and we all suffer for it.
That longing for what once was is a illusion and a cleverly disguised re-write of history. There is this common belief that men and women married young and stayed together for 50 years before croaking. This is simple untrue.
Past generations partook in serial marriages. My grandmother (b.1938) was married 4 times and my grandfather (b.1937) was married 4 times. Hell, Mickey Rooney was married 9 times, Elizabeth Taylor was married 8 times, and Zsa Zsa Gabor (her two sisters were also married numerous times- Magda 6 times and Eva 5 times) was married 9 times. They didn’t bed hop, they marriage hopped.
You can in fact find statistics that show the average marriage lasted much longer, the fertility rate was higher etc. But I forget that feminists hate facts so…
I am not a feminist. My point is people romanticize the past. Marriages historically did not last as long as we think. Prior to the 20th century life expectancy was shorter and people remarried all the time after losing a spouse to primarily disease, death from child birth, and accidental death through tough labor conditions.
“Marriages historically did not last as long as we think. ”
I think there is a difference between the reasons you gave for marriages not lasting that long, and people filing for divorces in like 3-6 years after a marriage.
I won’t get into cheating because I honestly have no clue how the attitudes around it changed over the time. But don’t you think the system currently is only incentivizing divorces/separation ? Be it legally/socially?
Out here a woman receives a life long alimony for no reason other than just getting married to an idiot and filing a divorce. Switch on the TV and all you can see are campaigns about how calling someone an idiot to their face is “verbal abuse”/emotional cruelty and shouldn’t be tolerated and people must just split up. Fast forward a few years and you will see the MRAs drumming up similar messages for men as vocally as the femitards currently do. Sure that might bring down the ratio of women filing divorces : men filing divorces from the 0.8 to 0.5. But by then a lot fewer people would be marrying ( Let’s not bring gays into this topic ) or a lot more divorces would be happening.
Oh, there are differences for multiple marriages for the generations before the 20th century vs. the 20th century when divorce laws changed.
For instance, Mickey Rooney hit it out of the park on his first marriage. He was a 5’0 former child actor with limited film prospects as a leading man in his twenties but somehow landed Eva Gardner (she was 18 and a virgin) as his first wife. Long story short he was caught running around on her and she filed for divorce. Marilyn Monroe filed for divorce against Joe DiMaggio for being “cold, moody, and indifferent”.
There tends to be more focus on the rampant divorce of the 20th century but no mention of the numerous remarriages. Betty White was married for the first time in 1945 and it lasted for less than a year. Her reasoning for getting married in the first place was because of social stigma regarding premarital sex at the time.
“I married my first husband (Dick Barker) because we wanted to sleep together. It lasted six months and we were in bed for six months.”
There were plenty of first marriages of the World War II era that didn’t last because of young people wanting to have sex. Not to mention the draft at the time. There was more of an immediate need for young people to get married at the time.
“There tends to be more focus on the rampant divorce of the 20th century but no mention of the numerous remarriages.”
Good one! :bows:
Although, watchout though. We can’t be analyzing the trends by just looking at news about celebrities. Even out here, they have the worst love lives.
Also understanding taboos around premarital sex without looking at advancements in birthcontrol seems to be what the mainstream media seems to be doing. And all they do is call one side (patriarchy, church, prudes etc.. ) the oppressor just to call the other side the heroes.
One thing I do know is that the cost of divorces have changed a lot due to technology, divorce laws etc.. though. Like can you imagine a single mom cooking, cleaning, washing with 1945’s tech? Or a single dad juggling 10 hour factory work with kids at home. So if someone strayed, people seeked to “fix them” rather than “dump them”.
See, feminist tend to taut birth control (or abortion) as the game changer regarding marriage and sex, they are dead wrong. Society and family took a drastic change primarily due to medical breakthroughs of eradicating disease. Prior to vaccines and a growing understanding of viral diseases there was a high infant mortality rate. The lowering of infant morality rates changed the family structure dr
No, no-fault changed the power structure within the marriage…favouring the woman and weakening the bonding between the couple.
Hogwash old timer. Because of a lower infant mortality rates women had less children because they were more likely to survive into adulthood. This started a chain reaction and women didn’t have to have 10 children with the expectation only a few would make it to the age of five.
LOL, kid, I was there ;-D
After WW2, large families were the norm in both the USA and Canada. Both my late wife and myself each had four siblings. Only us, and one sister in each side avoided divorce…and with each subsequent generation divorce has become easier.
I am talking to the beginning of the 20th century. You were apart of the first generation of children who greatly benefited from vaccines. The decline of infectious diseases and lower infant mortality rates STARTED the chain reaction. No-fault divorce was a later issue. My generation is the no-fault divorce fallout.
Then you know the difficulty with children trying to learn “the dance between the sexes” when their parents have split up. Many kids don’t have much chance to observe how to properly treat “the other.” That’s what we were seeing within our extended families anyway.
I do not disagree with you in the slightest on that issue. Nor on the consequences and timing of no-fault divorce. But I think for there to be an understanding of how we ended up here we need to go further back in history. That means before the changing social issues of birth control and feminism.
In a simple explanation it used to be society (and family) vs. nature (or science). With all the advancements I have mentioned we took a direction to male vs. female. And now because of the fracturing of the family unit through divorce of the past 50 years we are starting to see parents vs. children (or baby boomers vs. millennials)
LOL, I would put it as female vs. male ;-D
Well, at least until before the internet. Men simply did not fight females before that…and second wave feminism depended upon that chivalry.
I also used to think that the reason people stopped having 10 children was because of the move from villages to cities here. Like cities absolutely hate the concept of larger families here. Even the jobs people have in cities can’t support larger families as closer brothers taking care of the family land/cattle (girls get married off and sent to live with their families) still happens in villages here. That can never seem to happen if the brother was just a low wage worker in some corporate dungeon in the city.
That is a bit tricky. I would say first the lowering of infant mortality rates meant those 10 children did survive into adulthood, but it started the trend of too many mouths to feed. Because of people having more kids than they could afford birth control became an issue.
The mortality rate seems to be true for the “tribal” population here. Otherwise, your theory still doesn’t explain the difference in family preferences of the number of kids to have in villages vs. cities here, when the mortality rate seems roughly the same.
You mean villages vs. cities vs. the suburbs. If you look at primarily of farms vs. cities you are negating the rise of the suburbs which is entirely a 20th century concept.
Umm…
Out here we have villages vs. towns vs. cities. Villages are completely agriculture based ones. (4-5 kids) Towns are still about small businesses, with but the life style still seems similar to villages here (3-4 kids per family). Cities – on the other hand usually don’t seem to go more than 1-2 kids per family.
In both villages and towns , I clearly saw the attitude of “the more the merrier”.. you know.. Even in towns, it is like if one brother sits in the shop , the other can go to cities/villages to look at more clients/places to import from. And all that stuff i am not sure how to explain (my folks are not into business either). In cities however, there is a distinct lack of attitudes like “the more the merrier”. Or like you put it “only more mouths to feed”.
Gotcha- here it is farms vs. suburbs vs. cities. Just a lingo distinction. Yeah, we operate the same way. There are less likely to be big families in cities. Also, leading to a less favorable opinion of family values and more dependence on government.
Ahh .. the only people I have seen use the word suburbs here are the people who are in the really really huge cities here (10+ million people). Like “suburbs of Mumbai” which basically means “some posh area of that city” lol. In the towns I lived in, I don’t think the population ever exceeded 50,000.
“Also, leading to a less favorable opinion of family values and more dependence on government.”
Actually true! You know.. when i was trying to visualize “large families” , the first image that popped into my head was “brothers sharing responsibilities” when I thought about villages. When it comes to cities, the first image in my head was “drunken beggars just pushing out more kids and letting them lose on the city to beg for more money”.
And yeah, even I seem to notice that in cities the ideas like family = “sharing of responsibilities” have been replaced with some weird version of “unconditional love” and all that mushy stuff, and when it comes to actual responsibilities, people simply seem to talk about “independence”/”rights”. And I seem to be thinking more about that these days you know. Like “look at the responsibilities in something, then you can easily see what you are trading off”. Be it a job/relationship/what not.
Simple. If you have a farm, your offspring will begin working and contributing at a young age. There is more benefit than cost to having children. If you work for someone else and your children do nothing ( maybe study for their future), then it is very costly for you to have children. The cost a lot and do not add benefits.
Actually your theory seems to break down quite a bit even when it comes to the simple farmers, who work for farmers who own land here. They are considerably poorer, and their kids cant exactly work for alongside them, because of mandatory school and anti child labour laws. Yet the poor folk seem to make babies like rabbits, when compared to the richer farmers. I honestly don’t know how these things work anymore though.
“See, feminist tend to taut birth control (or abortion) as the game changer regarding marriage and sex, they are dead wrong. ”
I thought they tend to attribute everything to their “movements” rather than even things like birth control. And you can say medical breakthroughs, but even technology changed a lot too. Where were fridges and microwave ovens in the 40s?
And yeah.. people seem less and less interested in even having kids lately. So even less “pressure” on couples who “just want to break up”..
Feminist “movements” never happened they way women’s studies glorify. It all correlates (including the initial first wave or the suffragettes) with the industrial revolution as well as monetary changes brought about because of the industrial revolution.
As for less interested in kids- Does society (as is) need children? In an agriculture economy the survival tit-for-tat between generations depended on having numerous healthy children. Children also had a more important role in society as far as either farm work that benefited the family and even at the beginning of the 20th century as child laborers. Now a child is economically dependent on their parents until the age of 18 or later.
We have gotten to the point where our economy and livelihood is far separated from our biology. There will be consequences for this separation.
“Feminist “movements” never happened they way women’s studies glorify. It
all correlated (including the initial first wave or the suffergettes)
with the industrial revolution as well as monetary changes brought about
because of the industrial revolution.”
Amen woman!
“As for less interested in kids- Does society (as is) need children? ”
Yes. Simply yes. 2 words: “Ageing population”.
At an individual level… last year grand father needed a heart surgery. I can’t even think how things would have been, if there weren’t any kids/wife to take care of him. Financially/Emotionally/Physically. Dunno about your country, but out here ageing parents are at the end of the day the son’s responsibility too.
At a societal level.. Germany and Denmark are already happily importing immigrants… I don’t think it is any coincidence that their birthrates are at an all time low.
I also don’t see anything wrong with kids helping out in farmwork etc.. you know. As long as it isn’t messing up with their education. Dad’s father was a farmer. And he used to do his fair share of work during Sundays or summer holidays or even after school.
“We have gotten to the point where our economy and livelihood
is far separated from our biology. There will be consequences for this
separation.”
I actually had a similar feeling about “working for big corporations” recently. (As opposed to working for smaller startups…)
The aging population ship has already sailed. Right now we are on the verge of a major shift. On one side children are economically dependent on their parents until 18 at the soonest. At the same time most young adults are not financially secured to really get married and start a family until the age range of roughly 26-34 which is way too late for nature’s plans for humanity.
Nature will always favor the young in their reproductive years. In the view of nature, a 20-year old has more value to society than the elderly. An 80-year old (especially as life is being artificially extended because of medical advancements and machines etc.) does not have as much value to society as the middle-aged who do help with raising grandchildren and helping the parents.
“The aging population ship has already sailed. ” Explain? That seems to be the only problem I notice when it comes to people not having kids.
And the reason I don’t believe in your “economically dependent” on their parents theory is that… girls always seem to not mind marrying older men. All the girls of my class who got married in university, got married to guys like at least 6-7 years older than them.
If girls want to waste their 20s checking out their options/choices – be it career/other fish in the sea/what not in the name of “Equality”/”Empowerment”/what not, they can’t complain when they get screwed by the consequences in their 30s.
As a guy, I am just glad that my clock for my “natural problems” is more…. “kind” towards my choices.
Ok, I didn’t spend my twenties exploring my options. I spent them first going to college and then surviving the 2008 financial crisis. My priority was not managing my facebook page or going after “omg, hawt guys”. My focus was working any job that put a roof over my head and food in my stomach. While there are plenty of young women with vapid existences, I was not one of them.
But at the same time you knew the costs of your choices and I don’t see you complaining like those women either. For you, that probably means being able to have only 2 kids instead of 3 kids . Or 1 kid instead of 2 kids – whatever is the ideal number for you guys out there.
Out here, even if girls aren’t those vapid types you just mentioned, they still see “Marriage” as some kind of weird tradeoff against being a “career woman”. Because they consider themselves “independent” and “empowered” women. And when they hit mid 30s, suddenly they seem to realize that humans don’t like being “independent” afterall.. and seem to be the ones complaining about “society” being unkind towards women’s needs and all that nonsense. Or “the unfair double standards”. Mom did 2 degrees AFTER getting married. So in the dating scene, if you are serious about things, it becomes very trivial to spot short sighted idiots like that you know. I am sure you can find some similar heuristic about guys too.
From my observations there are a limited amount of young women under the age of 35 who actually have careers. It is more likely they have jobs with limited long term earning potential.Which means they are never going to be independent in the sense of the 1970’s Mary Tyler Moore of single woman making it in the big cities with her one-bedroom apartment and cooky neighbors.
For the less vapid, the reality will hit sooner for young women that they will have to work twice as hard as previous generations to have the luxury of what was once considered “a woman’s place” in the home.
Which is kinda humorous that young women think they are independent from a man when in fact they rely on corporate America for their paychecks. In the same way, they only have to go up one or two levels on the management scale above their own positions before they in fact do have to answer to a man and their livelihood is dependent on a man.
“From my observations there are a limited amount of young women under the age of 35 who actually have careers”
Ha! I knew you were going to bring that up lol. In fact, not even a lot of guys I know are thinking in terms of “careers” these days. Hell – even I realized / actually understood the real difference between them during the job hunt after I quit my first job a couple of years ago.
But I meant it more like people who say I want to be “independent career woman first” and only then look for marriage in their mid 30s. What use is institutions like marriages/families for people who only want to be “independent”?
I also don’t think “a woman’s place” is “at home either”. I think it is basically sharing her husband’s responsibilties. Whether it means working in the fields(like most of the village workforce here) or taking up a part time job or doing all the housework and managing the household income(invest it, spend it and all that..) is simply dependent on their economic status and where they are you know… even in the towns here, a lot of women “work from home”.. like weave baskets or make clothes or process food items and what not.
Hm, yeah. There are not any men who are going to marry and financially support a woman in her twenties who wants to start a family. Actually, one of the problems that women face, is entering into a long-term relationship with marriage and family as the goal while she is in her 20’s, and then years later the guy still won’t commit. It is then that she faces her 30’s still looking for a mate. I can tell you from experience, if a woman in the west does not go to college, her mate choices are very reduced. In fact, a lot of women go to college in order to find a mate ( better than the guy who works at the local fast-food place). Men are actually the majority who are putting off committment. Men don’t want a ton of children either, it is too costly. Men don’t want to just have to work and work because they had more children than they could afford. This is reason that women are ok with marrying older men. It is not that they like older men, it is that they are trading. They will trade being with a younger man, for being with an older man who will commit.
It’s funny how, before marriage – guys seem to be the one having trouble sticking around – and after marriage, women seem to be the ones with the same problem. At least anecdotally speaking – counting the number of break ups and divorces I have seen in real life so far.
Another interesting observation is that half the guys I know wouldn’t even have graduated high school, if it isnt for the fear that without a shiny college degree / a job that comes with that, they wouldn’t be marriage material – for half the chicks they want to settle down with. Honestly speaking, we all seem to prefer people of our similar social status .. I have seen girls dumping guys because they aren’t “that ambitious” (the guy didnt want to pursue an MBA), I have also seen guys actively avoiding “those rich chicks” because they think anything wouldn’t last. So as much as we seem to pretend money doesn’t matter in real life, it seems to matter *a lot*.
“It is not that they like older men, it is that they are trading. ”
Honestly, most chicks I know in real life actually prefer older men. Back in university – half my batch girls only went out with our seniors and most of the guys went out with our juniors. After graduating university, the age gap only seemed to have increased. Even most of my female friends openly admit that they prefer older men. And believe me, none of these girls are looking for anything remotely related to “marriage” or “commitment”.
I wouldn’t bet on that
Hmmm, I am in a middle 60’s widower so I got to see all the wonders that feminism wrought. Other than Hollywood celebrities, I only knew of two divorces as a kid. Before no-fault divorce, one needed to prove adultery, abandonment, or repeated severe violence. Couples stuck together and made the marriage work.
I too only know 2 divorces so far from my real life. Last year they introduced the no fault divorce bill in a much more draconian way here though. Like only women can oppose a no fault divorce – if it causes them financial troubles. Only husband’s property(including inheritables) will be split upon divorce. What happened was until they passed that bill , a lot of women stopped filing for divorces… the divorce rate actually fell during that time of uncertainity. Now I saw what kind of attitudes really cause divorces.
And yeah one thing I keep noticing is the attitude change though. People entering marriages with attitudes like that “If he does that, I will dump his ass off”. I can’t imagine anyone from my parents’ generation saying that. Almost every idiot I know thinks splitting up is the sign of “empowerment” as opposed to the strength/courage to “make things work”.
Yeah, no-fault alters the power structure within marriage to strengthen a wife’s hand.
To be brutally honest, I actually don’t think no-fault divorce is a problematic thing, if there are no stupid concepts of lengthy alimony payments or how only wife can oppose it or what not.
If some dodo wants to screw her marriage and split up instead of fix it, it is her loss too. But what seems to be the problem is that all the laws about alimony etc.. seem to be about “She doesn’t want him, but she needs his money ” .. Of course, where I live it is more open and only husbands are expected to maintain the divorced wife until she latches onto another host (legally). While in your place they probably use fancier phrases like “But that is in the best interests of the child”.
I don’t know where your legal system is. Alimony and child support are the last remnants of ancient Norman coverature laws. Those formed part of the Common Law of England, and basically supported the legal system throughout the Anglosphere…all of the colonies and dominions, including those that formed the USA.
Only those two relics remain…strange that women didn’t remove them when they whined to the courts and legislatures and got rid of all the others ;-D
Ah I live in India. Yeah most of our laws were imported from the Brits too. But ever since the 1980s I think, the bunch of “women’s organizations” and illiterate politicians (that’s what they call themselves here, instead of operating under fake words like “equality” etc…) have completely crapped on the legal system under the guise of passing “women friendly laws”.
They codified presumption of guilt against men,
They passed many gender biased laws (which apply to only one gender).
So as a guy if any dodo signed any change . org campaigns for these laws or supports any such organizations/campaigns, I immediately know to dump her and run for my life. Thankfully it empowered them to come out with their stupidity at least
Yeah, you guys are just starting to fight. I am Canadian, we had feminist support from all three of our federal political parties from the 80’s until a little over a decade ago. Moreover, federal and provincial governments publicly subsidized feminist groups and court challenges. So the rot went very deep and we are still digging out the poison.
Wait until the NPD is in power. More feminism, more diversity, more zionism, a recipe for civil war and the end of society.
We are?
I honestly don’t think so. We have been passing crazier laws like the ones that I just told you and encouraging every kind of media campaigns promoting narcissistic dodos, in the name of “women empowerment”. The only silverlining I see is it is very trivial for me to avoid any dodo who is into all that crap. Life is too short to be spending with stupid people – especially if they are proud and defensive about their stupidity.
Have you contacted AVFM? I believe that they have an organization in India now.
oh dunno. I avoid AVFM guys too simply because they honestly seem a lot like feminists. I understand that a lot of them got horribly screwed by the current feminist governments/laws. But they aren’t my thing. I used to follow a couple of them on twitter just to balance the nonsense that my other SJWish friends from real life spew. But that just seemed like Jumping into a Sea because the Ocean was too difficult to swim lol.
For eg. their response to #KillAllMen was #KillAllWomen or some whiny comeback – Neither of which are fun/logical. I mean I can understand if it is #KillAllFeminists or just even collecting all the #KillAllMen tweets in a website called SJWStupidity dot com.
But yeah, that’s how I came to know which laws should I be careful
about here, where I live. (Ignorance of the law is not an excuse here.)
Fair enough. I also don’t have much time for the complaining also, but I do enjoy listening to the Honeybadgers. Those girls don’t take any prisoners ;-D
No fault did open the flood gates, but make no mistake, the laws had been consistently weakened for decades before it, and fraud of the divorce court was rampant.
Not in Canada. One needed proof of adultery, abandonment, or repeated severe violence.
you’re talking about celebrities not real people. Entertainers have always been degenerate. Most folks would stick together no matter what, raising strong families.
“I am not a feminist”
Yes you are. Now FOAD.
OK, raging misogynist
Thanks for proving my point!
Hard to deal with reality.
I think serial monogamy–including reproduction–is a reasonable way to live. Among animals I believe it is common.
You’re not going back far enough. The corruption of marriage didn’t begin with no fault divorce in the late Sixties. That was the coup de grace. It began in the mid to late 19th century, with the changing legal status of women in marriage, and the subsequent and necessary loosening of marriage restraints to compensate for it. Someone born in the Thirties would have married at the tail end of a century long decline.
I made comments to that same sentiment further down in the section. But we can pin point the mid 19th century for many reasons in the U.S. (at least) because of the Civil War leaving so many young women unmarried or widowed. Many of the first wave feminists were raise by the women of the post Civil War era. Which would’ve given reason for women advocating for legal rights to property and voting.
Women have had right to vote/own property ever since our independence from the Brits. But the divorce rate only started spiking up only recently, since the 70s or 80s I think. That’s why I beleive the urban lifestyle + ultracreepy divorce laws is what is causing so many divorces. Even out here, urban women file the most divorce applications. All the extra time on their hands + messed up notions of “empowerment”/”independence”.
I’m curious considering your from India is arranged marriages declining? What is the current state of arranged marriages in India considering this push for empowerment and divorce rates.
Arranged marriages are definitely declining. All the arranged marriages my friends have had are more or less similar to dating. But with a much more “focussed approach”, as opposed to the “whenever/whatever” approach in the “love marriages”. Parents/matrimonial websites/etc… bring you the matches. You pick one and if you like them , you get engaged and spend a year or so, knowing each other (and the families trying to get along well) . Basically dating without “birds and bees”. And then you tie the knot.
One of my ex colleagues was from a small village and is in his 40s I think. He had an arranged marriage and he first saw his wife in person, on the day of his wedding. I don’t think I know anyone I know today who would do such things.
As for correlation between arranged/love marriages vs. divorce rates – I honestly don’t know. But I wouldn’t be surprised if love marriages have more divorces, simply because – for a lot of people going into arranged marriages, single parenthood is still a huge taboo.
As for the numbers go, out of the last 6 weddings I have attended 4 are arranged marriages.
Yes, I see. Whatever the coalescing of circumstances (social, economic, religious, etc.) during that time, my assertion was that your dismissal of the “romantic” past was not entirely accurate. Surely, nothing was ever as good as we in the present would like to believe. People, as fallen creatures, have always had their vices and failings. As true in one age, as in another. But notwithstanding the limitations of marriage imposed by death, marriages did last longer and provide a greater chance for marital happiness, before those changes so discussed, occurred.
I note, a passage from a contemporary opinion on the subject and its immediate fallout.
Shall Women Vote: A Book for Men by Conway Whittle Sams (1913) (P. 96-97)
https://archive.org/details/shallwomenvotea00samsgoog
“If the Legislature adhere to the policy of stripping the husbands of all benefit, advantage, or pleasure which they might derive from marriage, a natural consequence of this policy would be to discourage men from entering into that state. It has some advantages, and many responsibilities, restrictions, burdens, and limitations. Add to these burdens and these responsibilities the policeman, the sheriff, the criminal courts, and the jails, and take away as many of the advantages as possible, and the men may prefer to find their happiness in the pleasures of single blessedness, in clubhouses, or in the lower pleasures of bar-rooms, ‘and other such resorts. When marriage is sought to be made, on these modern lines, (thoroughly satisfactory to the women, it will be found probably not to please the men. It will probably also not really suit the women, for this scheme of married life tends to extract all the sweetness from the relation, and to supplant love, trust, devotion, and honor with distrust, reservation, conflicts of authority, and discord. This policy is, as we all know, a new thing in Virginia, only dating back to April 4, 1877, and going from that date rapidly from bad to worse. Its effect on the social and business status of married men has already been bad, and the injury tends to increase rapidly. We all know many persons who were married under the old system. Very many of us are the children of marriages made under that system. These two classes yet leaven the lump of society, and, in a measure, keep alive the ideals which formerly characterized this relation. But, as with every revolving year we get farther and farther away from that time, and there are fewer and fewer representing the former conditions, and more and more who have never known anything but the present system, the relation will become more and more demoralized. The fact should be
emphasized that around the old system, the system of love, confidence, and trust, sprung up and blossomed the flowers of poetry and romance. All our love stories, and all the dear traditions of the past on this subject, were coexistent with the laws which have been so recently overthrown; while around the present system has grown up the noxious weed of divorce, and the too often
repeated scenes of violence, terminating in murder and suicide. Divorce will continue to increase, and these tragedies will increase, not until the laws relating to divorce merely be made more strict, as is the frantic demand of so many well meaning men and women, public speakers and writers, but until the marriage relation be made again more satisfactory. A system contemplating two heads in one house, or the unmanly surrender of leadership to the women, is a system which will forever foster divorce, if indeed it do not undermine marriage and society itself.”
Even in 1913, they knew. They… Knew!
Good to see you write about this. I felt this way a few years ago. Amazingly almost any woman will whole heartedly agree with this article.
I think your taking it too far Roosh. Men should have their eyes open and have the backing of their older/wiser male friends when dealing with women. But these posts as of late are becoming more about ‘Roosh’s inability to connect with people for long time periods’ then anything about women.