This brief post is a short collection of some random thoughts that I’ve had lately. Reader input is encouraged.
Balance
One thing that I have noticed in myself is a tendency to favor “balance” in certain situations. One of the more common ones is when I am writing something critical of women- I instinctively think of something to include which is critical of men in order to balance it out. Having noticed this tendency, I am doing my best to quash it, but it has proven remarkably difficult to suppress. Still, the fact that I know its a problem is probably the biggest step in its correction, because most men don’t even realize that they have this problem.
This leads to an interesting point- are most Churchian leaders aware of this particular flaw? I believe it qualifies as a flaw because it often serves to detract or undermine any point they are making. Such leaders are quite prone to this; they will criticize men whenever they criticize women, and they will praise women whenever they praise men. My belief is that some of them know full well what they are doing- they are protecting their interests by not angering the most vocal and involved members of their “flock.” Others, however, I think are so deluded and conditioned that they don’t realize what they are doing. Whether it is a desire to be fair or non-judgmental or whatever, they have made it a habit to seek “balance” whenever women are concerned.
Anyone else have this tendency?
[This segment was motivated by this post by Cail Corishev.]
Being a King
For some time I have been trying to perfect the following phrase:
I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.
It is a pet project of mine- a ready-made quip when dealing with a woman I’m investigating for marriage potential who shows signs of being a “princess.” The idea being that I would ask her if she would expect to be treated like a queen when we marry. If she says yes, I would mention this. It could also apply if her parents said something similar as well.
So far it doesn’t seem quite perfect, but I haven’t been able to tweak it to that Goldilocks level of “just right.” Perhaps some of my readers would feel like adding their thoughts.
Removing the Mask
Rollo’s most recent post, Controlling Interests, got me thinking about two different things. The first is how brazen many women now are when it comes to living their lives they way they want to. And the second is how a fight is likely brewing between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.
The basic strategy which many (most?) women employ right now, which is regularly known as AF/BB (see Rollo’s post for more), is one that requires two distinct elements to pull off: deceit and desperation. Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.
On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.
What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.
All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.
What I am uncertain of, and curious about, is what shape this fight will take. Women are already starting to question the dominant paradigm in numerous ways, one example being the delaying of childbirth. Perhaps a similar reaction will take place, where women attack their brazen sisters from the margins, discouraging them from “painting women in a bad light”, or some such. Or they could always latch onto the tried-and-true method of “fixing” the problem by attacking men as insecure pigs.
So, what do my readers think of this matter? Will women “price themselves out of the market” faster than male desperation can compensate for? And how will women on the margins react to more and more men becoming aware of the con that is being pulled on them?
Donal Graeme 
Eros Shrugged. I keep saying that one, and it continues to be useful. Just as Atlas Shrugged predicted how the productive would fall away, Eros Shrugged is showing the productive walk away. Men will keep a communal girl friend to sort of trick themselves into thinking they have a woman, and masturbation and pornography will meet the sexual need. Women will continue trying to shame men and attack them with the law, but as men have less to lose, hurting them is harder. Women will consolidate their power, but as men walk away, they will realize how worthless the power really is. I see more women settling down quickly, because they may be getting a sense of what is to come, but the rest are going on as usual.
Dalrock has a prediction that is one of the better ones I have seen. Even if men are willing to marry, the time they do not spend getting ready to be married is lost. You can change your mind in your thirties and decide to get married, and women are good at getting you to change it. You cannot change your mind in your thirties and fix the aimless wandering of your twenties. Men are not getting ready for marriage, and that will have consequences for women beyond delaying marriage.
The Shadowed Knight
One thing that I have noticed in myself is a tendency to favor “balance” in certain situations. One of the more common ones is when I am writing something critical of women- I instinctively think of something to include which is critical of men in order to balance it out… Anyone else have this tendency?
I used to do occasionally something similar when talking about politics – I’d rail about “the liberals” and then throw in something the Republicans were weak on so I didn’t sound like I was totally drinking one side’s Kool-Aid. I have since decided that unless said weakness was relevant to the topic at hand, it just sounded like I was watering down my arguments (and also I’ve realized just how nearly useless the Republican politicians are).
For some time I have been trying to perfect the following phrase:
I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.
A couple ideas…
“I will treat you like a Queen… so long as I am your King.” Cut out the extra syllabic verbiage in the middle and lay out from the start how it’s gonna be. Not recommended you wear an Elvis jumpsuit and cape while saying this.
“I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I’m Big Pimpin!” This sounds like you.
How about this Donal…. “I will treat you like a Queen… and you will treat me like a King.” You can test her reaction to the notion of treating you that way, as well as her reaction to being given a direct command. Two birds with one stone.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by female “haves” and “have-nots”. Is this women who have a man vs those that don’t? Or something else? And what kinds of women is the fight between?
“All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. ***
“What I am uncertain of, and curious about, is what shape this fight will take. Women are already starting to question the dominant paradigm in numerous ways ***”
By “fight between women” I take it you mean the intranecine conflict among women about the deteriorating state of the SMP/MMP.
What immediately comes to mind is that the current trend will continue. More and more women will fight amongst themselves for the top men and those fights will be ever increasingly brazen and open. Women will share top men with ever increasing degrees of openness. The top men will have rotating harems, but those men won’t have to juggle or spin plates. It will be out in the open. He will make clear that’s how he operates; and all his women will know about each other and have an open, explicit agreement to share his sexual attentions and some of his resources as he sees fit to give them. Increasing numbers of women (married or single) will become the mistresses of married men, simply for the preselection and because they can’t get attention from any other attractive men. And there will be more sluttery, more rapid movement to sex sooner, and more “slut contests” in which women out-slut each other for the top men. Women will go into almost complete depravity and degradation for the chance at a spot in a top man’s harem.
More and more men will become sexual “have nots”. They won’t be able to get attention from ANY women, even the 2s and 3s. Being unable to garner attention even from ugly women, they’ll retreat into porn and masturbation. Having no incentive to do anything more or better, they’ll earn enough only to barely get by.
And all this will become more open, more commonplace, and more passe in the culture. It will become “normative”. It will be something people make small talk about, like going to church or the local news from the newspaper or the new car the neighbors bought. It will be just “no big deal”.
FBNF, you should read Rollo’s post to understand better, but in short: the “haves” are the women for whom #haveitall actually works: smart, motivated, pretty, rich. Having established a career, gotten married, have 2.5 kids and daycare/afterschool programs, they are free to be open about their sexual strategy. Sheryl Sandberg is the prototype here.
The have-nots are the 99% of women (people for that matter) who cannot be C-level executives and spend four hours a day with their children.
And Donal, frankly, I think baiting the quote is kind of dumb. I would advise to be more optimistic and save that sort of quote for when she brings it up herself (“I expect a man to be treat me like a queen!”). Maybe I’m not getting the context you have in mind.
@ seriouslypleasedropit,
I read Rollo’s post twice in a row. But I still only understand bits and pieces of it, so by extention I couldn’t follow much of what Donal is saying in response to it. I admit that there is still plenty that I don’t quite get that gets said around here. Hopefully with more time spent here, I will. Thank you for the explanation though, it helps some. I’ll keep an eye on the comments and hopefully figure the rest out.
Having no incentive to do anything more or better, they’ll earn enough only to barely get by.
This by itself would bring the whole system down. Those men are necessary, but they must be compensated. Add in violence as men learn that criminals get women, and things degrade quickly.
The Shadowed Knight
Oh, and I almost forgot, good examples of the women splitting with feminism are women like Sunshine Mary, Margery, and Janet Bloomfield. Women like them will be more prevalent, although probably a small number overall. They will provide examples for the younger women.
The Shadowed Knight
@ TSK
Yes, Dalrock’s point about men not preparing for marriage is important. It ties into this in a number of ways, not the least of which is the fact that a woman is a “have” if she can get for herself a socially acceptable man. The system, however, is set up to discourage from working to be socially acceptable and so the pool continues to drop.
Also, I think you are right that some women will figure out what is happening and respond in a smart fashion. They will come to their senses and not follow this script, rationally realizing that “good enough” really is what it means.
@ NSR
Sounds good. Thanks. As for your other suggestion… yeah….
@ FBNF
Dropit explained it well. The Haves are the women who get a socially acceptable man for themselves, and the Have-nots are those who don’t. Marriage is still a status symbol for most middle-class+ women, and the quality of the man determines the status imparted.
Also, I like the idea of using the phrase as a command. Might be useful to test her out.
@ Deti
I think you are right that many, maybe even most, women will go that route. But I think a few will have the brains to figure out what is going on, and react in a more intelligent fashion. The problem for them is that their reaction plan is contingent on their being men available still. And a lack thereof is what gets the whole thing started. This is a situation where those who act soonest get the best results.
@ Dropit
Reading what I wrote again, I can see where you thought I was baiting with it. Agree that it is pretty dumb- at least, what I think of baiting for it anyways. My idea was to use it as a response or counter to a major sign of EAP syndrome in a woman. Maybe the whole thing is a bad idea. I haven’t used it yet, it was just something that I have been toying with in the back of my head for a while.
Good post. A few comments:
1) Women are in fierce combat with one another for top men today. Unlike prior eras where fathers married their daughters off, modern women must fend for themselves and usually go slut in desperation, unable to make the connections between slut now vs spinster later. From the outside it doesn’t always look like that, but examine female happiness levels…it’s grim times for women seeking a good life. I would guess the smarter set of women will start worrying about marrying young and having families, and this will become more envied by those women who can’t pull it off with a man in the upper third. I see it more and more every year; unhappy women at work looking wistfully at kid pictures in men’s offices, women gawking shamelessly at larger families in public, glaring at the mothers with the all the happy kids. If looks could kill…
2) Humans are going through a massive evolutionary change right now due to plentiful resources. This, interestingly enough, is causing a huge explosion in traditional women who, unlike prior generations, have nearly unlimited resources to breed. All at the exact moment liberal women decided to go deliberately extinct. Case in point: back in the 1950’s, lots of ordinary Catholic women (many who were functional liberals) still had big families because, hey, that’s what Catholics did. This is not true today. The vast majority women who have large families are seriously religious and fiercely anti-feminist. And they have lots of daughters who will hope to marry young and have large families themselves. The future belongs to those who show up for it. No sluts, I’m afraid, will pass Go and collect $200. It doesn’t take long for this breeding disparity to sweep the culture. Look at Mennonites or Mormons who have taken entire states by storm in a few hundred years merely by holding traditional gender lines and eschewing birth control. Another example is conservative Muslims in Turkey or Saudi.
3) Because of the demographic earthquakes today (Mohammad is a big name in London, for example) it’s sort of pointless to concern oneself with the froth of bad female behavior. This is merely dinosaurs humping as it snows. They are functionally extinct, so who cares? It makes more sense to pay attention to the future, which is being midwifed as we speak.
@ shadowed knight
‘Add in violence as men learn that criminals get women, and things degrade quickly.’
Already happening with the chavs in Britain and in America’s inner cities.
As for “being treated like a Queen”…
“Is Her Majesty looking for the King or for another peasant?”
@ Zack
Ha! I like that. Has just the right amount of snark for a response to a fitness test.
I believe the next step in the collapse will be legalization of prostitution throughout America. Women will like it because it gives them a sense of power over men. Men will like it because it circumvents the cesspit of Marriage 2.0 to make sex easily available. Government will like it because it’s another tax revenue stream.
Of course, it won’t work out as the reasonable compromise it’ll be sold as. The death spiral tightens.
I’ve caught that “balance” thing myself; it’s very prevalent in Protestant conversations. My conclusion was that its root is an unwillingness to pass judgment. “You’re sinning but we’re all sinners here” sort of thing. I categorized it as a Beta trait together with my poor habits of eye contact, back when I discovered the manosphere.
Pingback: Balancing Act |
by attacking men as insecure pigs.
Most men don’t care. I know that to me, this is usually a sign that I’ll be taking at least one of the women home and enjoying them for the evening – at least if they are young enough to interest me. The older ones (> 25) aren’t worth my time, they are getting the baby-rabies, and I’m in it for an evening of fun. I come down solidly on the side of the guys that women love to hate – but it doesn’t stop them from coming to my bed. And really – that is all that I care about – as long as I can bed them, there is no reason for me to do anything different. And that isn’t changing any time soon, since Feminists are telling all of those sweet young things to enjoy life when they can. And they are – my biggest worry is making sure that she’s 18, and not 15…
Women have been turning on themselves more and more these days, the older criticizing the younger, for the same behavior they enjoyed when they could get away with it. Of course, when they are being ignored by men, as they are too old it’s a completely different story. Men hold all of the cards – I love American women for the evenings and weekends. But if I ever decide to have a family, I’ll retire out of the US and hook up with a couple of sweet young things in a country that is more “friendly” to men. The US is on the slides – I’ll enjoy the ride down, then hop off at the bottom to enjoy the beach bunnies… Every smart man will do the same…
[DG: To make it clear, I in no way support what this comment advocates, or what the commenter professes. But I think it is important to hear comments like this from time to time. They remind us of how feminism wrecks women and empowers men like Just Saying. And how it creates a group of men with no desire or compulsion to preserve society.]
I think most of you give way to much credit to women. Women will not (in any number that matters) police the herd and walk away from feminism. They will ride the feminism train right into the mud huts and gladly spread their legs for which ever tribe takes of Western Civilization. It’s what they do
“I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.”
I use this when women get out of line “If you be a bitch… I will be a bastard”
@ just saying,
Encouraging bad behavior only enables it to get worse. Meaning, guys like you that entertain slutty women rather than shaming them aren’t exactly helping matters any. If anything, you’re helping to make it worse.
My conclusion was that its root is an unwillingness to pass judgment. “You’re sinning but we’re all sinners here” sort of thing.
Preemptive defense against charges of “I’m glad I’m not like that tax-collector” Pharisaism.
Possible response (which I have not yet had a chance to use): “Yes, I’m admonishing you for committing a sin (possible addendum: of which I have in the past been guilty): I know how much damage it does, (choose one: especially when one does not repent/and I’ve repented of it). Be wise and repent.”
Sorry for not getting to folks sooner- internet troubles lately have kept me away.
@ mdavid
Demographics is destiny. This is both good… and bad. The good news is that a lot of “progressive” folks are un-breeding themselves to extinction. The bad news is that the lowest ends of society are still having children, and often lots of them- they usually don’t bother with birth-control. So in some ways it is getting better, but there are still problems out there.
@ Gunner
Actually, I expect a lot of women to resist it. They know that if men have legal access to sex out of marriage it will make the pool of men willing/wanting to marry even smaller. But I do agree that there will be a push for it nonetheless.
@ ton
I largely agree with you. The number of women who can/will act rationally is insufficient to move us away from this downward spiral.
@ dish
Crude, but effective I guess.
@ Feather Blade
Let me know how that goes when you use it.
DG, The bad news is that the lowest ends of society are still having children, and often lots of them- they usually don’t bother with birth-control.
I make no judgement here. Since the “higher” ends of society don’t seem to want to breed, I’d say God is welcoming the “lower” ends to the feast. I don’t see this as bad. Ironic? Yes…everyone has been invited to the feast, but only the lowly want to come…
@ mdavid
When I said lowly, I didn’t refer simply to SES. I meant lowest in terms of positive civilization traits. As in, those who are least likely to be productive and law-abiding.
Pingback: Musings on Romance | Free Northerner