Since folks seem rather intent on going off-topic, I figured a post devoted to that purpose seems appropriate. Please continue any discussions from the old threads that weren’t relevant to those topics here. This will be a lightly moderated but I would ask folks to show at least some restraint.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Christian Blogs
Christian Masculinity Blogs
Edifying Reading
Feminine Blogs
Inactive/Archived/Private
Parenting/Families
Red Pill Christian Blogs
Red Pill Women
Secular Red Pill Blogs
Top Posts
Categories
- Alpha
- Alpha Widow
- APE
- Attraction
- Beta
- Blue Pill
- Christianity
- Churchianity
- Civilization
- Courtship
- Desire
- Fatherhood
- Femininity
- Feminism
- Fitness Test
- God
- Hypergamy
- LAMPS
- Marriage
- Marriage Market Place
- Masculinity
- Men
- Moral Agency
- Neo-Reaction
- Pair Bonding
- Parenting
- Polygamy
- Red Pill
- Reference
- Saturday Saints
- Selected Sunday Scriptures
- Serial Monogamy
- Sex
- Sexual Market Place
- Sexual Strategies
- Sin
- State of Nature
- Sunshine Mary
- Temptation
- The Church
- Tradition
- Uncategorized
- Women
Archives
- April 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
Meta
Donal Graeme · Wisdom cries out in the street… who shall listen?
Donal Graeme 
I meant that in every sense of the word. #thatsdeep
From Soc. 101: you have two sides of sociology, or the study of society. There are quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative is used in *market* research.
Does an overall socialist economy create a socialist SMP**, or is it the reverse? I’m not claiming to know the answer, but think about THAT!
A conspiracy theory is very easy to build, here.
(**by “SMP” is meant any marketplace wherein people end up having sex, including the MMP)
What really drives any market is first necessity and second utility. You can have one or the other, but you have to have at least one. Our necessity basket = a daily portion of staple grain + two changes of clothing + something to cover feet with + a fire + water + a tent + medicine. Because we all have this, you could argue that our market is driven by seeking utility, i.e. “the Pursuit of Happiness”. Yes, we still go to the store to buy rice, but the sub market (?) within the main market is so prominent that it might as well be our market.
Sex is borderline utility/necessity, but I’d say it’s utility, because your reproductive system does nothing to enhance your *own* day-to-day survival. I suppose you could argue on a sociological level that it’s a necessity, because the aftermath is that it always happens, which becomes a necessity. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, it’s a utility.
Therefore, in a utility-driven marketplace, Sex is arguably the biggest driver, even to the point that later creates necessity (offspring). This is how you could argue that the SMP is the most influential marketplace in our economy.
I probably shouldn’t have said “sex”: that narrows it down too much. What I really mean is whatever goes with my newly-redefined SMP. So, I also lump-in the desire for marriage, companionship, and you could maybe even lump-in the *desire* to *potentially* grow a family. Because as soon as I lump-in kids, it’s not the same thing. It’s not longer utility.
Seriously Mdavid. I know a lot of unattractive women with lots of kids. A few with more than me and I gave birth to 5 which is considered a lot in this day and age.
While I do understand and agree with the gist of your point, the sexual revolution has nullified many of those biological cues by way of rampant STDs and ubiquitous birth control.
Of course men could help the situation considerably by refusing to marry or procreate with women who have uglified themselves in various ways, whether obesity, tattoos or whatever. But men are no more honest than women about what the truly want:
http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2012/02/13/what-a-man-wants-then-1939-and-now-2008/
jack, “eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap” dynamic will never be reversed until mankind is free of this mortal coil. The female imperative will shift from the promiscuous to the virtuous – but driven by pragmatism, not virtue.
Because eggs are expensive, nature is careful with women so they sit in the middle of the bell curve as to not take genetic risk (they are average). Men will always have more “top dogs” AND “dummies” in every biological trait because nature takes more risks with them; they are expendable. For every Einstein there is a retarded guy. For women there are few of either, since neither is good for kids. For this reason, the best bloggers will statistically be male with only the occasional exceptional female. Heck, even the best hairdressers or fashion designers (skill sets the average woman dominates) are always male. And why top college profs, Nobel winners, or whatnot are male.
Going to your original point: I think you are confusing PUA and manosphere. I read manosphere but rarely read PUA (except Roissy, who is a genius with a ton of social commentary sprinkled in with his lame PUA stuff).
You are talking to someone who knows the difference better than most. I chose my words very deliberately.
As it was stated so elegantly over at the Spearhead a few years back, women are society’s center of gravity, which is also borne out by your reference to the thick part of the bell curve.
Men clear the trees and rocks, and then the women move in to inhabit. This is the natural order of things. Men have created this space. It is inevitable -and desirable- for women to enter it. Men are agents of change. Women decide if the change will stick, and what its final form will be.
———————————————————————————–
I used the term “manosphere” in the very general sense. I tire of discussions where everyone pulls out their rulers and sets about trying to classify the precise boundaries of the manosphere.
Suffice to say that the next major leg of advancement for the general goals of the sphere will be driven by female agency. Again, though, it will not be done out of a desire to right any wrongs, or to heal any wounds that men have experienced. It will be done from pragmatic self-interest.
Sluttery, disrespect to men, and the perpetual war footing of feminism will eventually lead to major societal losses for women. At which time their naked self-interest will cause them to pursue another course.
fringed
Hank, you sound like you are skinny. That is very, very good. Better than being genetically too fat. I was extremely skinny when I was young. Then I finally gained strength and size. It took years.
Yeah, I’m on the thin side naturally, but I’m not super-skinny like I was when I was a teenager. I’d probably still be really thin if I didn’t work out at all. Working out does help some, even without a special diet, but to make more rapid progress, I’ve found diet is really important.
lgrobins
And bio attraction has little to do with looks either. Its hard to explain and is perhaps best left that way. Like how do you do explain that I can acknowledge quite a lot of men as being good looking, but yet I feel nothing for them.
I wouldn’t say it has LITTLE to do with looks, but looks are certainly not the extent of it. There are obviously going to be personality traits one looks for in other people, and I would hazard a guess that most people are hoping they’ll find those personality traits in people they find physically attractive.
Suffice to say that the next major leg of advancement for the general goals of the sphere will be driven by female agency. Again, though, it will not be done out of a desire to right any wrongs, or to heal any wounds that men have experienced. It will be done from pragmatic self-interest.
Sluttery, disrespect to men, and the perpetual war footing of feminism will eventually lead to major societal losses for women. At which time their naked self-interest will cause them to pursue another course.
It’s possible, who knows?
I mean I’ve never seen the manosphere as a movement that would create large-scale change. It’s always been more of a grab-bad of personal options for individual lives, with different guys taking different things from it, to the extent they are useful and/or consistent with other life goals/values and so on. Seeing it as a movement or a proto-movement was, in my view, always the wrong way to see it. The MRAs are a proto-movement, because that is what they do … but the manosphere as a whole, not really.
In general, I don’t see men acting effectively as a movement (sorry MRAs …). In part it’s because men don’t band together to confront women the way women do to confront men (as has been talked about endlessly in the sphere over the years), but in part it’s because most men are content with things as they are.
Men generally fall into one of six camps: (1) married (either happy or unhappy not really relevant, because they are married and are in “married mode” which in almost all cases precludes any kind of engagement on these issues), (2) benefiting from the system (i.e., the ones who are getting laid more than at any time since our species stopped swinging from the trees) so why change it, (3) getting the occasional lay, combined with some combination of porn/x-box/ESPN/beer/bros so as to make like not only tolerable but generally enjoyable, (4) divorced and also not in either categories (2) or (3) (some divorced guys move into one of those categories, and so should be counted there and not in category (4)), (5) celibate for religious/moral reasons (haven’t found the right woman to marry yet) or (6) incel. That’s basically the landscape of guys.
The guys in categories (1), (2) and (3) are never going to be interested in working for change for any of these issues. Because they are either neck-deep in the system (1), benefiting from the system directly (2), or anaesthetized enough that it doesn’t really matter much (3). In other words, they are either more or less content and/or compromised/captured by the system.
So what you have left are the guys in categories (4), (5) and (6). None of these categories presents a sympathetic/charismatic/motivational figure to anyone who is also not in one of these categories himself. So a movement won’t be founded on the (4), (5) and (6) guys either, even though it’s these guys who are very prominent in, say, aspects of the MRA world, and other aspects of the manosphere. If you look around the manosphere, this is most of what you see, in terms of the *participants*. The leading bloggers actually are guys in the (1), (2) and (3) camps (Dalrock, Rollo, Roissy, etc.), but most of the readers/participants are in the (4), (5) and (6) categories. There are some exceptions (i.e., there are some married guys who also participate), but they are outnumbered by the (4), (5) and (6) guys.
Basically the world of guys is comprised either of those who are to a greater or lesser degree content or compromised, on the one hand, and those who are to a greater or lesser degree not sympathetic figures for men as a whole. So no movement will be formed around these issues. Occasionally, you see people suggesting that the (4) – (6) group is growing in numbers, but I personally see no evidence of this, and think an argument can be made that the group that is really growing in numbers is the (3) group, and the (3) group has various ways of slaking its energy for engagement and is otherwise generally content with life.
So maybe it will be something that happens among women that brings change. I know increasing numbers of women won’t be happy with the shrinking number of men available to become (1) men, and the growth in satisfied (3) men. Whether they actually do something about their own behavior in this regard, and whether it will be timely, is something else. I don’t think it’s all that easy to get the (3) guys to change, really, and I think that’s the growth stock in the landscape of men at the moment.
The observation that there are a lot of hot men married to homely women is evidence of a few things:
1. A woman can still get married quite easily if that’s what she wants and sets her mind to. It is no great feat for a woman to attract a man, even an attractive man. Once again – I do not for one minute believe that it is all that difficult for a woman, any woman, to find a suitable man and lock him down for marriage.
2. There are a lot of thirsty men.
__________________________
I agree with jack that the manosphere will fade. It already is fading, as its purpose has been largely served. Many people have taken what they need from it and are moving on. I myself have noticed the absence of a lot of frequent commenters.
The manosphere as I knew it a couple of years ago is now mostly a combination of hospital emergency room and crash course elementary school. Wounded men wash up here after horrible blue pill failures. We all know the stories – repeated failed relationships, breakups, dead bedroom marriages, “I’m not haaaappy” frivorces, wife cheats resulting in divorce. A few of their shipwrecked lives end up here after they logged on and googled “woman problems” or “divorce” or somesuch other thing. They come here to get some triage and some salve for the wounds; and a bit of education from an ER doc or a nurse. Some of them are still hanging around picking at their scabs and not moving on to the real world, preferring instead to be walking wounded. Others are ER docs in training. Or think they are.
And yes, women will take up further residence here and reshape it. jack is correct that female virtue will increase and that it will be out of pragmatism, not true virtue or love. They will do it because they have no other viable choices.
And there will be no apologies, no mea culpas, no contrition. There will be no recognition or acknowledgments of the deep wounds inflicted, the damage done, or the past squandering of time and treasure. There will be no efforts to make things right or clean up the mess. There will be only “but we’re here now; and we’re giving it our all now. There’s no point in trying to assign responsibility. So you men need to let bygones be bygones, let it go, and move on.”
But there won’t be any great conflicts between feminists and tradcons and “red pill women”. Those differences are mostly religious, spiritual and ideological, not sexual or social. To the extent they exist, they are already being quietly worked out. There’s not a whole lot of difference among them. I was at FBNF’s and talked with two tradcon women whose positions on male “abuse” align more or less with the predominant feminist position. They will all still expect men to serve the female imperative whether they identify as feminist, traditional conservative, or “red pill” (and most men will happily line up to do so). Whether feminist, tradcon or “red pill”, each woman will seek to maximize male investment and commitment. They will do so out of necessity first and affection/caring second (notable exceptions present, of course).
This is what women do. They do it because they’re hardwired to do it, just as men are hardwired to have sex with as many pretty women as possible. The difference is that our society is set up explicitly to enable and encourage women to fulfill their imperatives; while at the same time seeks to sandbag and impede men at fulfilling theirs.
jack, Sluttery, disrespect to men, and the perpetual war footing of feminism will eventually lead to major societal losses for women. At which time their naked self-interest will cause them to pursue another course.
I agree, except I think trads will begin to dominate the gene pool first and nobody will remember feminists, who won’t go out with a bang, but a whimper (or a meow). The future probably looks like Utah made up of Hispanics. People forget, 300 years ago, people of European culture made up 25% of world population. Today, it’s 10% and falling; game over. And I wouldn’t rule out tyranny or something like Russia or the Shariah either for a replacement, where men kill each other off and women hide in terror. But never lose sight of the fact that every feminist culture in the world is imploding population-wise. It’s not the future.
E, Seriously Mdavid. I know a lot of unattractive women with lots of kids…the sexual revolution has nullified many of those biological cues by way of rampant STDs and ubiquitous birth control.
Absolutely. Just remember that it’s not the number of kids that matter, but the number of grandkids. I doubt the welfare mom model is sustainable over time.
Of course men could help the situation considerably by refusing to marry or procreate with women who have uglified themselves in various ways, whether obesity, tattoos or whatever. But men are no more honest than women about what the truly want
Agreed again. But, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, what makes sense is not what people are going to do. All one can do is prepare for the worst, know the fire escape, and run like hell.
Feminine But Not Feminist
Do you really want to resolve whatever it is that you are upset with DS over?
jack
As I predicted a couple years ago, the manosphere is fading. It will be replaced – eventually – with blogs such as DS
Can someone tell me or what DS is or what those letters stand for? I don’t really care about anyone’s issues with this DS. I just want to know if there’s a blog I’ve forgotten about or am not familiar with yet. I’ve looked on the blogroll of some of the other blogs and haven’t found anything matching the initials “DS.”
DS is deepstrength. Just abbreviating.
@deti
“And there will be no apologies, no mea culpas, no contrition.”
Oh, there might be, but will they really mean it? LLlozlzolzozlzo!!!!
Future blog topic “How to convince your man that you’ve actually apologized without sacrificing your strength or independence.”
;-p
==> https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/ (it’s in the links on the right sidebar of this blog as well).
Cool, thanks.
DS = Deep Strength. He has his own blog firmly entrenched in what I and some others call the Christomanosphere. Some who used to comment here have left and formed their own blogs.
Speaking of the Christomanosphere, I think we’re headed to a major split between that wing and the rest of the MRA/manosphere/PUA/men’s issues realm. When that split will happen is anyone’s guess, but we all know what will cause it. That split will be over Game. The anti-Game wing is growing, it’s vocal, it’s forceful and it’s committed. The prime objections to Game are
1. its origins are fundamentally immoral and injurious to its practitioners because its origins arise from “systems” designed to persuade immoral and base women to sleep with them without commitment. Game isn’t praxis or a toolbox; it promotes sin and will corrupt good men who learn and use it, even if they attempt to use it for moral ends.
2. It doesn’t work, having a “top” success rate in the teens or 20s percentiles. Or at least it doesn’t work any better than just going out there and approaching while “being yourself”.
3. You can’t base a society or an SMP or MMP on it. You can’t Game a wife for years or decades.
4. Game isn’t self improvement; it’s a glossy sheen over a fundamentally rotten core. It’s painting makeup on ugly, fat, boring, crappy or morally degenerate men.
That’s where the next major break is coming, I think.
@ Mrs C, etc.
I have e-mailed her twice and stated twice on my blog to e-mail me. I don’t shy away from conflict; rather, I would like to see things resolved properly via Matthew 18 in private. I am also willing to apologize for any mistakes that I have made as I have before.
It’s not about brushing things under the rug or other such cloak and dagger type of instances. Such discussions publically about what may have occurred are gossip, which is why I have been refusing to participate. I want to do what is right via God’s Word.
Thus, I’d ask for any Christians who have been talking about this to stop speaking about it publically. My e-mail is on my site in the about section, which you can reach by clicking on my name in this post and then going over to the about section. If anyone has any further issues with me they can talk to me in private.
@thedeti Good analysis, one I don’t disagree with. But an incomplete one. While Game will be the major trigger on the more Christian conscientious manosphere blogs, what will be more likely given current trends is a break of the rest of the manosphere from the Christian sites.
They are waking up more and more to realize the more clear and present danger to men comes from traditionalism rather than Marxist feminism. This comes out in the argument that certain manosphere advocates are not advocating for full male sovereignty but for the women to be “kinder and gentler slave masters” in begging men to “come back to the plantation”. This is being reinforced by the traditionalist co-option of A Voice For Men, but evidence also exists in the Good Men Project and is a notable reason why Aunt Giggles has gone full bore feminist again (pretty much she sees the way the winds are blowing).
In short, the old “one (sex act) and those manosphere men will drop the whole thing” yarn is proving true in a great many quarters.
@ deti, mdavid, nova, etc.
My contention is that the global economy will likely start to falter rather significantly due in part to things such as Japan’s MGTOWs (herbivores):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22/japans-sexual-apathy-is-endangering-the-global-economy/
However, given the rate at which reddit’s TRP is growing, I don’t think the manosphere at large will be snuffed out. As deti said, the manosphere itself will become significantly more fractured.
If you keep up with any of the TRP, there used to be decent discussions months ago about the differences between the various reactions to RP — MGTOW, PUA, religious, MRAs, etc. However, if you attempt to start any type of religious discussion on TRP now you get downvoted by the masses who are all PUA-type atheists. Obviously, this will trend toward significant fracturing which has already been occurring for the latter part of 2014.
In terms of the anti-game versus game crowd, I have always tended towards the anti-game. I think there are two problems currently:
1. It is very difficult for [Christian] men who have been ingrained previously in a BP mindset to see what is amoral vs. immoral.
Structures to conversation like JoJ talked about before his blog went down is inherently amoral. I don’t consider this actual “game” anymore than toastmasters or public speaking is considered game. It’s the art of communication. Although I will acknowledge that some of the proponents of game do consider such things game which means we are talking past each other.
I had a very difficult time distinguishing this in the earlier part of this year which has led to significant miscommunications in my personal life. Which leads me to my second point:
2. The heart must be right before God — e.g the internal must be consistent with God’s ideals — to lay any type of foundation for which to communicate. This is the primary reason for my current series on identity because identity provides a foundation for the values that someone has, and how they will act and communicate with other people. My IRL personality has undergone a radical transformation as I’ve been exploring this recently, and it’s given me more clarity about the amoral vs immoral.
Regarding game: I’m pro good communication in a confident manner but anti-immoral behavior of which I believe there is a lot. If that clarifies my position at all.
More manosphere breaks will be happening as the blogs’ focus shifts from “solving women problems” to “lifestyle”. The manosphere arose because guys were seeing the problems in their own personal lives specifically with a woman or women in general. There’s a decided focus-shift afoot away from that and toward overall male lifestyle.
They are geared mostly toward Novaseeker’s category (2) and (3) guys, the men who are getting laid to beat the band; and the guys who get the occasional lay with the rest of life being beer, bros, Xbox and ESPN. The idea behind the lifestyle blogs is to help the (3) guys move toward being (2) guys. Examples include 30 Days to X, Bold and Determined, Danger and Play, and The Proper Villains (Google them). Lifestyle blogs focus on self improvement, nutrition, physical fitness, earning money, social skills, sociophilosophical commentary, and generally “kicking life in the ass”. They’re geared toward men who probably aren’t going to marry or who are going to have LTRs and even kids without legal marriage. They don’t talk about Game or PUA or men’s rights. They just don’t cater to the 4, 5 and 6 guys (divorced men, celibate for religious reasons, and incels).
Return of Kings is sort of sui generis right now, kind of filling the void left when Matt Forney closed up In Mala Fide.
Ballista:
Yeah, traditionalism is a greater danger than feminism right now. The prime reason for this is as I said before. The differences among feminists, tradcons and “red pill” women are only ideological, not sexual or social. When it comes right down to it, when push comes to shove, women will as a group adopt and live under whatever ideology serves their purposes. Women will jettison the fundaments of Christianity if it serves their purposes to do so. A woman’s being ability to compete in the herd, get a man for sex or for resources, and secure resources for her kids, are more important than her faith.
We are seeing this wholesale in the North American Church, friends. Most young single women populating our churches are virtually indistinguishable from their secular sisters. All but a tiny minority aren’t virgins. Most are living their lives exactly as secular nonChristians do – going out on the weekends, sleeping with boyfriends, working at jobs and careers, traveling frequently. They look, dress, act, and speak as nonChristians. They consume the same goods and media as nonChristians. They have the same secular worldly tastes and appetites as nonChristians.
It’s not the same with the men. The men outside the North American Church are catching on, and checking out. The men I see in the North American Church are clueless about women. They don’t know even the first thing about female nature, or their own. They don’t know how to be attractive because no one has ever showed them. They don’t know how men act, because they have never grown up around one. Everyone around them tells them to “just be themselves; just be nice, just be Godly”. Everyone tells them that women find the Fruits of the Spirit sexually attractive, when that is far, far from the truth. Everyone tells them that they don’t have to work on their physical appearance; that all they have to do is just be nice and get jobs and become providers, and women will fall all over themselves to date, marry and have sex with them.
@thedeti Yes, I see that shift in the manosphere too towards more lifestyle and entertainment. Perhaps more of boredom, but more reflecting the realization that men are checking out and women are just not a concern anymore. Among the factions, people are realizing that MGTOW is the only thing that is adequately addressing all forms of feminism, so they are flocking there. This is especially true in the case of MRA, which is proving to be code for “kinder and gentler treatment for slaves on the plantation”. PUA has become irrelevant for years now, only a few enclaves holding onto it for the reasons you described.
As I argue in many posts on my blog, the difference between RPW, Marxist feminism, and traditionalism comes more from presentation than ideology. They re identical in ideology. The Japan MGTOW’s (*), as mentioned above, is an interesting study in this way. If you look at that whole movement from a honest place, while feminism as most of the West knows it hasn’t penetrated the culture, traditionalism has to a great extent. Simply put, men are rejecting having to do anything with women because having anything to do with them puts them into the role of the provider tool pack mule. The implications of that are more pronounced in the Japanese culture than here (there’s almost a “I was born for dying” mentality in the older men), but regardless the implications have consequences. Our Western culture is unique to theirs in that there are some moral factors in play in the women themselves. But there, the only reason its happening is pure traditionalism.
But what makes the both common is that marriage has been rendered into a dangerous and unfruitful activity that’s being (correctly) interpreted as foolish to enter into.
(*) – there’s a couple of good articles written by natives that explain it that I have saved in the same place as BSkillet’s old posts. They’re online, but I couldn’t tell you where to look off the top of my head.
@ Novaseeker
I too have always believed that it’s the (3) group that is growing the fastest. It’s important to note though that this group is a major force behind the Sexodus. It’s the guys who could get laid but don’t find the effort required worth it who will return balance to the SMP. It is they who will break the monopoly on power that young women have in this SMP.
@ deti
I don’t see why you lump RPW in with marxist feminism and traditionalism. RPW is clearly different from the rest in that its general message is “ask not what your man can do for you but ask what you can do for your man”. That’s not to say that individual red pill women are all great. They’re still subject to the same faults and instincts as any other women. AWALT. But the difference is that RPW acts to actively control the base impulses and instincts, just as society teaches men to do.
Err that should have been response to ballista not deti.
Actually, response to both.
Ballista is only partially correct about the Japanese MGTOWs.
Even though traditionalism is still prevalent in Japan, Japanese women/wives have traditional control over the family finances.
https://books.google.com/books?id=dNUpa8WCY3gC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=japanese+women+have+control+over+household+finances&source=bl&ots=D76K2BV9hN&sig=uPt8c-az2nOenAM-yWyMQu0uqmw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J-uiVKGtMoS3yATK3YGoAw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=japanese%20women%20have%20control%20over%20household%20finances&f=false
Thus, men there for decades have had the double disincentive:
1. Women control the finances of the family already
2. Men are required to work long hours of overtime to the company [for free] to support the lifestyle of their family
Despite this, the salaryman jobs were one of respect and the men were respected as head of the household. However, as the salaryman jobs have gotten more high stress over the course of the past few decades, more and more of the men have been opting out. That’s why you see almost 40% of the men 18-34 who have no interest in women altogether… not to mention no intentions of marriage.
This is similar to America but not exact. First, the respect and head of the household were disrupted by feminism. This led to the finances of the family to be implicitly controlled by the woman instead of explicitly. This double whammy of disincentives for family, coupled with the potential to be divorce raped is leading men to opt out.
Obviously, men are willing to take on some level of fiscal responsibility to have a family, but as seen in Japan the jobs can get too hard or here in America the disincentives against family are too much… or it can be a combo of both.
@Deep Strength I neglected to mention that fact, but it only serves to underscore such things that I wrote (the typical Asian cultural pattern is that men work, and surrender their paychecks to their wives who control the spending). This is exactly how it works in the West as well (the marketers will tell you that women control the super-majority of spending – this fact indicates that women control the super-majority of spending within marriages, which has been equally proven), though traditionally Western women have taken the tactic of proxy authority over their husbands instead of a directly exercised one.
It’s all the same thing when you dig down to the essence.
@SirNemesis It’s been addressed in a number of places (for instance). Scratch and sniff and you get traditional feminism as practiced by women, the idea that women gain and maintain moral dominance over the lives of men by using feminine wiles and manipulation.
Agreed on essence.
I think the Japanese have more job disincentives than Americans do, but Americans have more family disincentives than the Japanese. This may not necessarily have to do with laws but because of the individualistic vs. collectivistic nature of Western vs Eastern culture.
Nemesis:
I included RPW with Marxist feminists and traditionalist women because at bottom, regardless of ideology or worldview, women are still women. They will still do what they always do – seek to maximize male investment and commitment, avoid submission, and aggrandize power through the use of feminine wiles.
1. There’s really no such thing as a “non-red pill woman”. ALL women are “red pill” in terms of innately understanding how attraction works, understanding what they want in a man, understanding how to get that man, etc.
2. Ideology, worldviews, and moral systems of right and wrong are less important to women than meeting their directives – get pregnant and secure resources for children and self.
3. Most of the so-called RPWs are women who hit the intersexual relations jackpot. They are married to men to whom they are extremely sexually attracted, and who are good providers. They are married to alpha provider men – men who merge both AF and BB. Such men are quite rare, but most RPWs are, or claim to be, married to them. These women will do literally ANYTHING for their men – they make marriage look so easy, and tell other women they can (and should) do it too. Most women can’t do this, because they married an AF who can’t or won’t provide (or more commonly, knocked her up and left her); or far more commonly, married a BB who can’t tingle them. So most women walk away even more frustrated.
ALL women are “red pill” in terms of innately understanding how attraction works, understanding what they want in a man, understanding how to get that man, etc.
My girls seem fairly clueless. At this point my husband is fine with that though. I think I was pretty clueless too until I ran into a man I wanted bad enough to figure it out, and quick. If that’s what you mean then I agree. But not all women are as wily and strategic as all that.
@ Elspeth
Birth control has nothing to do with infertility. It causes a lot of problems, but infertility is not one of them. On the other hand, STDs certainly do cause infertility, which is a major reason (aside from the divorce/breakup risk) to stay away from promiscuous women.
However, among the physical cues of fertility, youth is certainly a factor. The less time has transpired since puberty, the more likely she is to be fertile. Is non-age-related physical attractiveness also an important cue of infertility? Yes, but it may or may not be significant. I’d probably look into the research on this, but it’s something to be mindful of.
I certainly agree that men should refuse to marry women who have uglified themselves, and that men are no more honest than women about what they truly want (although the frequent ‘men are pigs who only care about looks’ messages in the media work to somewhat mitigate this lack of honesty by men).
However, there are two caveats. First, beggars cannot afford to be choosers. As a general rule, many men are simply marrying what they can get. Second, I doubt that young women will respond all that much to whom men are marrying. For the large part, young women adjust their behavior by looking at who the attractive men are showing sexual interest in, not who men in general are marrying.
No. Absolutely not. The bulk of us are very stupid, and shave our heads and write emo Facebook statuses with song lyrics. It took me forever to understand how to dress, how to do my hair, and how to do my makeup in a way that flattered me. I think most women are pretty good at knowing what to do, and most men are pretty bad at knowing what to do. But then you have women sleeping with men on the first date and all that. Women are more red pill than men, but they aren’t red pill. No. For me, anything that I have that works comes from a lot of trial and error. It’s not instinct. A child’s charm is instinct. The illusion is that women have an instinct of charm.
What else…
PUA’s are generally good at making you feel like a woman, which actually does trigger something like an instinct. But if you don’t have someone making you feel that way, you don’t really think to act that way. You’re kind of in androgyny mode. I think if someone’s naturally pretty, they’ll feel naturally more girly, because men interact with them that way. And it has to be a man interacting with you that way: it can’t be a woman saying you look pretty. Yes, I feel prettier and more confident when a woman tells me that, but I don’t feel more female when a woman tells me that.
Strangely, although I have this sort of instinct to wear makeup, and I have my own definition of pretty and looks that I like, this makes me feel good about myself, but it doesn’t give me a frame of reference for being female. I like the fact that I *look* nice, but there’s often something decidedly androgynous about me. I can’t just turn femininity on and off. Probably the closest thing I could do would be to act friendly and nice to guys and sort of joke around. Men see this as flirting, I see it as being friendly. So, this allows the guy to feel comfortable acting masculine, thereby making me feel more feminine.
My two biggest problems are probably as follows:
1. I can be anxious around guys, which seems uptight, which seems disinterested.
2. I had, for a while, this expectation that men would just come right up and pick me out from the crowd. I didn’t realize that this only happened with top-tier women. Partially, this was a lie that Hollywood/ church/ society told me, and partially, it was a nurtured expectation. That is definitely what women prefer. However, it’s alright to indicate interest yourself first. What doesn’t work is approaching guys and asking them on dates or approaching guys and telling them you like them. It’s kind of like that Looney Toons where the mice tried to commit suicide in a cat’s mouth, and the cat wouldn’t eat them. It’s just against nature. But being friendly is the thing that you have to do. It doesn’t feel or seem like flirting to the women, but to the men, it seems like a low-expectation way of flirting. I think people like me either clam-up or we try too hard when we’re told to “show interest.” Friendliness, again, does not feel like showing interest. To me, being friendly is something that I do when I feel content.
I’ve read studies that talk about the intentional disconnect between men and women. Biologically (I’m not a Darwinist, but) it makes sense: if I’m content, I’m probably high-value, so if a guy sees the high-value women as women who like him, he’ll have better offspring. It’s a good way of sifting-through the bad ones.
So, in one way, EMK actually has one thing right: if you’re in the proper state of mind, guys are going to like you better. If you’re stressed-out for any reason, including wanting to get married, you’ll drive them away.
But technically speaking, you don’t even have to be in the correct state of mind. As a woman, all you have to do is seem happy and act friendly, and that helps indicate interest.
‘My girls seem fairly clueless.”
I doubt they’re as clueless as you think. It’s probably not so much that they don’t know what to do or be. It’s more that they’re not willing to be or do those things because
1. they have sufficient disincentives in the person of their father; and
2. they’re not ready to marry; and
3. they know the men they’re really sexually attracted to would be poor marriage candidates.
Actually, on a second look, I don’t think men are lying all that much on that survey, except perhaps on the issue of chastity. I ranked the importance of those items and my results were almost identical to those on the survey, with only a few exceptions – chastity and desire for home & children went way up for me while sociability went way down. In order from most important to least important:
Mutual attraction, love
Desire for home, children
Dependable character
Emotional stability, maturity
Chastity
Education, intelligence
Pleasing disposition
Good health
Good looks
Refinement, neatness
Good cook, housekeeper
Ambition, industriousness
Similar religious background
Good financial prospect
Favorable social status
Similar political background
Similar education background
Sociability
The first 5 criteria are by far the most important to me, and a girl who is significantly lacking in any one of them would ideally be a dealbreaker (I can’t say for certain I wouldn’t compromise on the chastity requirement though out of sheer necessity). The next three are also very important considerations, but probably not dealbreakers. The rest of the criteria are basically icing on the cake and are minor considerations, especially as one moves down the list.
A few caveats though in terms of interpretation (and I have no idea how the people who took the survey over the years interpreted these). First, although I put sociability at the bottom, I certainly would want my social interactions with her to be pleasant, which is why I put pleasing disposition quite high on the list. What I don’t really care for is sociability in the sense of extroversion, or sociability with strangers (although no doubt sociability with strangers is a big factor in whether I found her approachable enough to approach in the first place). Additionally, I only put “good looks” so low on the list on the assumption that physical attractiveness to me personally is subsumed under “mutual attraction, love”.
I’m now curious how the other men here would rank these traits. Perhaps some of the guys will take a stab?
@ Tru
I don’t think even top-tier women will get many men coming right up to them and picking them out from the crowd. The ones that do so will tend to be players looking for yet another conquest, or extremely low SMV guys who have nothing to lose.
I’d say that’s true of the typical man, and still pretty true of the red pill man.
I think so. Overall. I think in terms of what men marry, we reference our mothers, married elders, and lastly, married friends. That might be part of the high expectations that women have for men: they’re outdated.
@ Sir Nemesis:
Cold approach – agreed
But in terms of being in a social setting, top-tier girls will get approached more and also by more desirable candidates.
Tru
The bulk of us are very stupid
I think most women are pretty good at knowing what to do
So which is it?
@Elspeth
Most women know what to do if they would just do it. In fact, they begin early on their fathers often times. To that end, most of the time all it takes as tru indicates up above, is acting friendly and interested around a man, and then popping a few IOIs and the rest takes care of itself if the man isn’t too dense to notice.
(to that end I mentioned a long time ago about screen-capping a movie for IOIs, but have gotten busy. I realize I’d have to get permission to post the screen caps, but the thing that I wondered is whether there would be value in trying to teach female IOIs in this way or IOI in general. If it were possible to get a post like this done, of course)
Hank: Most women are better than men at knowing how to be attractive, but I guess, at the end of the day, we don’t really have the control to make the first move, so it probably evens-out. The closest thing to making a first move, I believe, is to be content and friendly. There’s something in the natural order about men chasing women (my word choice is kind of weird there). So, even if it *would* or *should* work-out better in dating to have a woman act forward, nature generally doesn’t allow it.
I think that women can pretty well get things set-up: look nice, act moderately attractive, etc. But there’s a sort of disconnect between point a and point b: between showing up and marrying the guy they want. Women are fairly good at showing-up, but in terms of getting to point b? No.
@ Tru
Right. The level of attractiveness will be a major factor in this. But even in social settings, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sociability vs. passivity is actually still a bigger factor than physical attractiveness when it comes to approaches.
This is because families and the overall community is what makes marriage happen in a regular and healthy way. Marriage has a communal aspect to it which is often ignored or forgotten. Young women, and young men, used to get help and advice in the past which helped make marriage happen. That is mostly gone now, which is why things are such a mess.
Uh-oh, Tru. Those are fighting words, even though I agree with you. I am very grateful not to be out there in this “market”. Even a fairly reserved, timid man pursued me when I was single. And my husband? He was a no holds barred type so…
The down side is that our girls have no expectation of having to play a major role in getting to point B until the young man has made a pretty clear intention of pursuit. This isn’t to say they expect to do nothing. I have spoken with them about taking care of themselves, being approachable, etc.
But they are their father’s daughters and as such they are fairly well used to his brand of masculinity, for better or worse. Which is why I pray.
Lgrobbins: bio-attraction takes precedence over looks, any day. Easily. This is at least true for me.
Bio-attraction is *not* game, but what is often confused as “love at first sight.” So, before a man even opens his mouth, I’ll be extremely attracted to him, and only later notice that he isn’t hot. There’s one fellow I experienced this with, and was surprised that my friend didn’t think he looked good. I think he looks great… but that’s just me. I can’t separate the look from the bio-trigger.
If I’m bio-into someone, they don’t even need game. It’s also generally mutual. If you’re bio-into someone, ask them on a date right there.
Oh, and I don’t agree that all women are inherently “Red Pill.” Applying that terminology to women is a mistake in my opinion. My next post on attraction will cover that. Expect it Friday-ish.