Market Analysis: Adjustments And Imbalances

My last significant post generated quite a lot of discussion, which was a plus. I want to thank my readers for keeping it civil. That makes my job that much easier. With it out of the way, I want to make a bit of a clarification of my own stance on the matter.

I ended my post Stock Imbalance with this:

Who has it harder in the marriage market: devout and serious minded Christian men, or devout and serious minded Christian women?

Can we even tell? And does it even matter?

I offered some responses to the first two questions earlier. But today I want to tackle the third. You see, I think that the imbalances do matter, and they should be talked about, if discussing them can help lead to solutions.

Description without prescription helps no one in my opinion. At best it leads us into a time sink. At worst it creates bitterness and mistrust. I might still be wasting time, but I think that trying to look for solutions to the problems in the market is still worthwhile.

Perhaps only personal solutions can be found- those that work at an individual level. That is something, at least.

But maybe solutions on a larger scale are possible. Perhaps that is merely at the level of a family, or maybe a particular church. Yet that will still be significant for the community in question. And you never know, it might be possible to sow the seeds of a long-term solution at some point. To set something in motion which will reap significant dividends in the end.

It might be just a fool’s hope, but it is better than nothing. Certainly I find it a better alternative to quiet despair.

So I intend to continue on with this line of inquiry- an examination of the marriage market, and a delving into possible methods of correcting the many problems that exist. My readers are more than welcome to chime in and add their own thoughts if they so desire. And if anyone finds this pointless, well, he or she can always sit it out.

Update: Just so I am crystal clear- at this point I don’t really care who has it better. What I do care about is imbalances- that is, forces which favor or disfavor men or women within the market. My goal is to discuss them with the hopes of eliminating as many forces that disfavor, and spreading around or boosting those forces which favor. I look on the situation as a case where a rising tide lifts all boats.

Advertisements

167 Comments

Filed under Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Red Pill

167 responses to “Market Analysis: Adjustments And Imbalances

  1. And a big portion of those men and women who try to go through life celibate and unmarried, because that’s the moral thing to do (and it is, if you’re unmarried), will break, and fail, and repent; and break again, and fail again, and repent again.

    Hard to accept that’s the best we can do. But, increasingly, I think that it is.

  2. Novaseeker

    I think that’s a fair characterization of the view expressed, which is essentially:

    1. At all costs avoid fishing for mates in a sea of sexual degenerates, because this puts your salvation at risk;

    2. Recognize that it’s very hard for people of both sexes (but perhaps marginally harder for men than for women) under the current circumstances to find a mate without doing “1”; so that

    3. You will avoid the consequences of sexual immorality, but you may not find a mate, which is better than the reverse.

  3. Nova:

    Agree, but I’ve edited 3. to more accurately reflect current conditions:

    “3. You will avoid the consequences of sexual immorality, but you PROBABLY WILL not find a mate, which is better than the reverse.

  4. Novaseeker

    And a big portion of those men and women who try to go through life celibate and unmarried, because that’s the moral thing to do (and it is, if you’re unmarried), will break, and fail, and repent; and break again, and fail again, and repent again.

    The vast majority will find their mates among the sea of sexual degenerates, marry said mates in church (including in the Catholic Church following proper confession, this happens ALL THE TIME) and may very well end up having successful marriages. The Church can’t *advocate* this, of course, because that would be advocating sin, but it’s what most people will do, and those sins in the Catholic/Orthodox context at least will be confessed and remitted. That’s the practical reality of what is happening, and the practical pastoral praxis, regardless of the official teaching.

  5. Deti and J:

    If there were good broad solutions to the problem, then the problem wouldn’t be that bad. The reason there are no good replacements for strong fathers and a supporting patriarchy is that these things are invaluable; nothing can adequately replace them, and to claim that they can be replaced is to devalue them. They also require organic human hierarchy. There are no broad, systemic solutions; there are only local solutions. Learn about social aptitude from carnegie, toastmasters, etc., make good friends from many generations (including older married people), develop a network of like-minded individuals, trust in God and try to be a better person. None of these things are broad or systemic, they are local and individual in nature.

    The Church’s job is to teach the truth, including the truth about men and women. It is not the Church’s job to teach individuals how to specifically apply them in their individual situations in excruciating detail. What you seem to be looking for is an easy, one-size-fits-all solution. There isn’t one, which is why the problem we have is as terrible as it is. But a bad idea is worse than no idea.

  6. “What you seem to be looking for is an easy, one-size-fits-all solution.”

    No I’m not. I’m pointing out the problem and setting out that under current conditions, there are not, and won’t be, any broad, systemic solutions. In fact it’s traditionalists who want the near-impossible, which is a broad based return to patriarchy and widespread chivalry. That would be the best option; but it’s not going to happen. So local, individual solutions are the only thing left now. That much we agree on.

  7. “The vast majority will find their mates among the sea of sexual degenerates, marry said mates in church (including in the Catholic Church following proper confession, this happens ALL THE TIME) and may very well end up having successful marriages.”

    I’m not quite as optimistic. You’re describing essentially the “reformed slut/reformed player” options here. I’d say some will eventually have successful marriages after marrying sexual degenerates, but in the end it’s a roll of the dice, confession or no, even for catechized Catholics/orthodox and for professing Prots.

  8. Novaseeker

    I’d say some will eventually have successful marriages after marrying sexual degenerates, but in the end it’s a roll of the dice, confession or no, even for catechized Catholics/orthodox and for professing Prots.

    A roll of the dice, sure. It’s just that I’ve seen too many marriages like that work to think that it’s necessarily a *bad* roll of the dice always — it depends on the people involved very much, family background, how degenerate they were, etc. I’ve also known people who married as virgins who ended up divorced, too. There’s always a dice roll aspect to it. The real dice roll here, of course, is that your time is up while you fishing in the mainstream (aka degenerate) pond and you’re eternally toast.

  9. “The vast majority will find their mates among the sea of sexual degenerates, marry said mates in church (including in the Catholic Church following proper confession, this happens ALL THE TIME) and may very well end up having successful marriages.”

    Tell that to Elspeth. She’ll be thrilled to read that. (not.)

  10. “The Church’s job is to teach the truth”

    Yes.

    “, including the truth about men and women.:”

    It’s not doing that, at all. In fact it’s teaching the exact WRONG things about men and women. It’s teaching falsehoods about men and women. It doesn’t teach about sexual attraction, what makes men and women sexually attractive, the nature of men, the nature of women, and what gets them together. And there are biblical sources for it, and they’re not used. Dalrock has done an excellent job of exposing this.

    “It is not the Church’s job to teach individuals how to specifically apply them in their individual situations in excruciating detail.”

    I never said it was. Don’t put words in my mouth.

  11. More helpful than Game is the knowledge that you are on your own, so you can move or you can sit there and bleed. That’s the main lesson fathers and patriarchy teach. Nature teaches it, too, in a less sympathetic and gentle way.

  12. “More helpful than Game is the knowledge that you are on your own, so you can move or you can sit there and bleed”

    Where are they going to get that knowledge when the effects of “nature” are damped down by well meaning but ill informed liberal, modern family members with statements like “just be nice, just be yourself” and “if girls don’t like you, it’s because you’re not nice enough and you need to be nicer”? Where are they going to get that knowledge when they’re being lied to about what they’re actually seeing; when they’re being given bad information after being exposed to what “nature” is telling them? Are they supposed to tell their family members that they are liars and not listen to them?

  13. Deti:

    There are plenty of sources from the writings of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium on the topic of men and women; it’s out there for anybody with an internet connection to find. More specific answers can only be found locally, and won’t be found from the Church because that is not the Church’s charism. This has been the point all along.

  14. Wow. Didn’t know this was still going on, but since I’ve been asked my thoughts, my first query is:

    Define sexual degenerates.

    People who have had a genuine encounter with The Way, The Truth, The Life and with life fruit and a track record that is evidence of the same are not sexual degenerates. They are new creatures in Christ. I’m just done, done, done, with pretending that Christ cannot change people deep down and for real. Suppose Paul had been deemed of no earthly use to the Church because of his previous persecution of it. Sigh…

    Obligatory caveat: This is offered by a sheltered church girl who married a guy who’d been “around” way more than er despite being only 20 years old and two years younger than she was. Categorize as you will. The marriage has been better than good.

    Take with a grain of salt, if that matters.

  15. Or if the effects of “nature” are damped down by ill informed family members and others who really don’t understand anything about “the truth about men and women”, as Halt mentioned in his post? What then? Are we just going to send men and women off to fend for themselves and find out what they can on their own?

  16. That knowledge isn’t offered by Game, so you can’t get it there. Where do you think people might find it, since Game won’t help them?

  17. “There are plenty of sources from the writings of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium on the topic of men and women; it’s out there for anybody with an internet connection to find.”

    You’re talking about the Roman Catholic Church. I was talking about the North American Christian church, the entire body of believers in the US and Canada (not just Roman Catholic – leave aside doctrinal differences for now, please).

    I’m aware of Church Fathers material and from the Magisterium. If it’s being taught as a matter of course to Catholics, you’d think they’d be more familiar with it and would live by it, than they are. That makes me think it’s not being taught, or it’s not being taught very well (or lived out by a number of its ordained priesthood). Most Catholics in the US have no idea what you’re talking about when you ask them what their Church has to say about male and female nature.

    The protestant churches are even worse, and have done a lot more damage, than any failures of the RCs.

    “More specific answers can only be found locally, and won’t be found from the Church because that is not the Church’s charism”

    I didn’t ask for more specific answers.

  18. “That knowledge isn’t offered by Game, so you can’t get it there. Where do you think people might find it, since Game won’t help them?”

    What knowledge?

  19. MK

    Concern: definitely a shortage of serious Christian women.

    I see few “serious” Christian men (e.g. who stand unified with historical Christians & don’t make up their own Jesus & Me bible alone doctrine). Were I a woman, I wouldn’t consider marrying a man like this. What’s to prevent him from changing after we tie the knot? So for trads there is a serious shortage of men. And I think men who reject the traditional faith both create and deserve the MMP failure they create. Individualism has consequences. The Amish & LDS marry just fine today because they are both obedient and tribal. Modern Christian men are individualist so reap what they sow.

    Nove: The trick in marriage wasn’t to force women to play — women needed marriage. The trick in marriage was to force men to play by guaranteeing them paternity in exchange for provision.

    Men and women have married forever just fine, long before Christianity. Women negotiate between resources and alphas; the system works fine. The problem traditional Christian civilization solved was forcing women to “give up” their optimization game and select a single male for life or get the Scarlett letter. Most men don’t need to be “forced” to play this game, only women and alpha men. It’s why we hear the constant lament today about the woman shortage by most Christians. The rules have changed when the RCC fell in cultural control, and it’s every man for himself.

    J: Exactly, I see this as abdication on the part of patriarchal traditionalists — which is ironic.

    I would be probably be called a “patriarchal traditionalist” by an average person. I got exactly zero support within the MMP from anyone else and still don’t. What exactly what are you accusing trads like me of “abdicating”?

    Deti: and [Zip is] representative of most tradcon thinking.

    No way. Not the trads I hang with, at least. We tend to be fairly realistic about the situation and many have fled from the mainstream and are woke. Zippy lives in a very intellectual and different world than most trads. Hell he doesn’t even vote. How many kids do you think he has?

  20. “People who have had a genuine encounter with The Way, The Truth, The Life and with life fruit and a track record that is evidence of the same are not sexual degenerates. They are new creatures in Christ.”

    There are many who claim this; but most of those many aren’t what they claim to be. They have fruit that looks and even tastes good, but has a long shelf life and goes rotten after he’s committed, and track records created by their willing pastor and church accomplices. The “Fake Reformed Slut”. Not to mention recidivists.

  21. “What knowledge?”

    Playing dumb

  22. “A roll of the dice, sure. It’s just that I’ve seen too many marriages like that work to think that it’s necessarily a *bad* roll of the dice always — it depends on the people involved very much, family background, how degenerate they were, etc”

    Then, if the marriage fails, it’s “well, you knew he/she had a previous history. You knew he/she [insert sexually degenerate conduct here]. This is your fault. You should have chosen better. Had you been more discerning and masculine/feminine/listened to everyone else, you wouldn’t have chosen him/her. Sucks to be you.”

  23. Patrick;

    I don’t think it’s “playing dumb”. I think it’s young inexperienced boys and girls accepting half truths and misinformation from people entrusted to teach them how this stuff works. These young people don’t have the knowledge base, the frame of reference, or the information to challenge what they’re being “taught”. Then then when confronted with how it actually plays out, the older family members gaslight them (lie to them as Dalrock has explained) or yell at them about how they need to man up and marry the sluts (as Dalrock has also explained).

  24. Nova:

    “may very well end up having successful marriages.”

    Also, we should define “successful marriage”. Because to me, miserably unhappy people who come to hate each other yet who are married to each other != “successful marriage”.

    One cheats on the other but they remain married with the usual resentments and mistrust != “successful marriage”.

    Woman marrying man she’s not sexually attracted to, or less attracted to than the men she used to have sex with, != “successful marriage”.

    Man marrying woman because she’s the only one who will give him the time of day and he’s desperate for sex != “successful marriage”.

    Man and woman don’t have a lot in common and come to hate each other != “successful marriage”.

    And people who aren’t really, truly listening to and seeking God (which is most people) won’t make a “successful marriage”.

  25. Deti, you are playing dumb. Durr, what knowledge? After we referred to “that knowledge” several times.

  26. Patrick, no I’m not. It’s somewhat difficult to follow multiple conversations in comboxes and more difficult still to trace back several comboxes to get at what you’re talking about, so if you’re not willing to make it plain, i’ll skip it.

  27. Novaseeker

    Deti —

    That’s true, but all I’m saying is that I’ve seen marriages where the wife is virginal, young, and religiously devoted where things don’t work well, either. People need to be discerning in any case, and when you’re looking at the tiny pond of young, Christian, virgin women, you’re really not given much leeway in terms of everything else. Heck, my own marriage was one of these, to be honest (but not the only one I’m aware of).

    —–

    And for other posters, if the standard is whether someone has reformed their lives or not, well then why make such a big deal out of guys in church groups going for the hot single mother? She very well may be a hot single mother who is ALSO reformed in her life and ways and a true follower of Christ — who knows?

  28. That’s exactly what you’re doing. You have no answers.

  29. Patrick:

    Well, it appears you really don’t either, other than “just get it, just figure it out for yourself”. Fair enough.

  30. And for other posters, if the standard is whether someone has reformed their lives or not, well then why make such a big deal out of guys in church groups going for the hot single mother? She very well may be a hot single mother who is ALSO reformed in her life and ways and a true follower of Christ — who knows?

    To be fair, Nova I was the one who made an issue of whether someone has reformed their life or not. I have no qualms with a man who decides he doesn’t want the mess of dealing with an ex-lover or spouse for the better part of 18 years.

    He is well within his rights to make that call, and her reformed life doesn’t obligate any man to take on that mess. I *get* better than most that it’s a mess. But given the current social, cultural, and religious climate, making a wrong call there could wreck your life.

    My experience says that with the right person, it’s a mess worth dealing with, but I don’t posit that my experience is typical.

    None of that changes my original assertion that people can and do have sincere changes of heart, and that any person’s decision to reject a certain group of people as mates is fine but let’s kill the “even real and true Christians are damaged beyond any kind of repair as potential mates”.

    That’s all I was saying. And now, I take my leave. I don’t think I can offer any clearer explanation of my words than that.

  31. Novaseeker

    Elspeth —

    I read this thread and Scott’s as running together, since they expressly relate to each other. I introduced that comment as to “other posters” because although I was reacting to what you wrote, I was juxtaposing it with comments in Scott’s thread complaining about how men choose the hot single mother.

  32. “Also being attractive isn’t like fixing a carbuerator, it’s like learning how to walk. Almost everyone can do it on his own and in basically the same way that people learn to walk.”

    Which means you have to:

    1) Watch other people who actually know how to do it, do it (emphasis on the “actually know how to do it” part. You want to learn from actual walkers who have learned how to walk.)

    2) Have other people help you do it. Show you the “tricks of the trade”, protips, tips and tricks, shortcuts. Have other people walk you through it.

    3) Have those same other people give you honest feedback about how well you did.

    4) Help you get back up when you fall.

    Here’s where your analogy falls flat.

    1) Most people are “learning” from others who

    a) Can’t walk, but call what they’re doing “walking”;

    b) Can walk, but can’t or won’t teach it

    c) Walk incorrectly.

    2) Imagine learning how to walk when other people never help you with it, and you’re actively prevented from learning from the people who actually know how to walk. There are manuals on how to walk, but you’re steered and directed away from them. The “protips” you get about your walking are 100% wrong and are from people who don’t know how to walk.

    3) You get either no feedback about how well you’re learning; or the feedback you get is 100% wrong.

    4) No one helps you after you fall. You’re left there.

    That person won’t learn how to walk. And that’s what’s happening with men and learning about human nature, sex, dating, and marriage.

  33. So we agree on that point, good. But you keep implying Game is an answer.

  34. Patrick:

    “Just get it, just figure it out for yourself” isn’t an answer.

  35. You’re talking about it as if it’s like fixing a carburetor, not learning to walk or speak.

  36. “You’re talking about it as if it’s like fixing a carburetor, not learning to walk or speak.”

    See my post at 9:57 pm, April 10.

  37. That’s what I was referring to. No one gets pro tips, tips and tricks, or feedback on learning how to walk. You keep saying over over that patriarchy isn’t prevalent anymore. AGREED.

  38. Yes they do get tips and tricks and feedback on learning how to walk. Is that in the form of detailed lists and manuals? No. But “Yay look at how good it was!” and “oops, put that foot here” IS “tips” and “Feedback”. And if you didn’t get that, then someone didn’t do his/her job in teaching you.

    What, moms and dads don’t help their kids learn how to walk? Mine did. I helped my kids. What parents don’t help their kids learn how to walk? It is funny, though, that many of those same parents don’t teach their kids about sex, dating, sex differences, male and female nature, and marriage – which are much more important concepts and can’t be left to “just get it, just figure it out for yourself”.

  39. Agreed, kids learn how to walk by trial and error, receiving positive stimulus when they succeed, and negative stimulus when they fail. They experience a desire to walk and develop their innate ability. That’s how they learn how to walk and speak and everything else natural to man.

  40. “Agreed, kids learn how to walk by trial and error, receiving positive stimulus when they succeed, and negative stimulus when they fail. They experience a desire to walk and develop their innate ability. That’s how they learn how to walk and speak and everything else natural to man.”

    That doesn’t translate to sexual relationships. If it did, there wouldn’t be the problems we have now, because everyone would be “just getting it and just figuring it out for themselves.” The fact that there are such problems indicates that your view is wrong. if you were correct, there’d be no need for a manosphere and no need for all these “Pill” discussions.

    There’s a wee bit more to it than what you’re suggesting. They have to have more guidance than that. The entire reason we don’t leave it to “trial and error” is because of the dangers and pitfalls (premarital sex, unplanned pregnancy, selection of unfit partners and poor matches, etc etc.) And they need to have education and help with it along the way, which includes parents and knowledgeable people telling them the truth about how it works. Because the consequences of “falling” in sexual relationships are much more severe than with learning how to walk.

  41. and I know that the trads among us will say “well, it would all be OK and boys and girls could just get it and just figure it out for themselves if we would just get rid of modernity and go back to patriarchy and strong fathers and ignore all this stuff about teaching men about masculinity because we don’t need to do that and etc. etc.”

    Agreed. If I were king of the world, Zippy’s view would be the law of the land tomorrow.

    But we don’t live in that world. I’m not the king of the world and I can’t take us back there, and neither can anyone else. That world isn’t coming back. Not in my life and not in my son’s life and probably not in his sons’ lives. The question is how do I survive, help my son, and teach him to teach his sons, in the world we actually live in, not the world we wish existed. And there’s more to it than reading Dale Carnegie and going to Toastmasters.

  42. Agreed, there is no real need for the manosphere. If you want to use that second paragraph as a defense of Game you’re just repeating yourself, and again that’s not what Game is.

  43. it’s not a defense of Game. I’m not talking about Game and haven’t been for a long time in this thread.

    I’m just going to leave this here, agree to disagree, and let you have the last word. It’s pretty clear minds won’t be changed here, but I do think I understand much better where you’re coming from and where the points of disagreement are.

  44. Besides, Patrick, in the manosphere, no one really talks about Game anymore.

  45. Ok. I think of the manosphere as infotainment. The only real lessons come ultimately from mother nature.

  46. Deti writes to Crossphased:

    I take it from a couple of your comments that you were once married or in a relationship and that ended because she left you for another man.

    Folks like Zippy would tell you it’s your fault…

    It is a safe bet that when Deti says something like “Folks like Zippy would tell you …” without making a direct quote and linking to context that whatever follows is complete nonsense. If Zippy had his way then adulteresses and other rebellious women would face rather grim consequences for doing what is very much their fault. Zippy is actually here, in short, and says very much the opposite. And that is just one example of the endless farrago of cluelessness that are Deti’s comments in this thread and many others.

  47. Patrick:
    You’ll note that the big complaint is that traditional patriarchal Christians are not offering a “solution” (other than “destroy feminism and restore patriarchy”). That is, the complaint is that there is no box of tools that atomized modern individuals can use to adequately compensate for a destroyed patriarchy.

    But the folks doing the complaining have no box of tools either: the only thing they have to offer is embrace of degeneracy.

    Sorry, but you always start the war from where you actually are: from an apprehension of the truth.

  48. MK is correct to reject Deti’s characterization of my views as typical of “trads”. I’m not sure that there even is a “typical” traditionalist view, but if there is it is vanishingly unlikely that my own views are representative.

    As for speculation about my person, I don’t discuss my personal life online but that sort of attempt at remote psychologizing is doubtless pretty amusing to folks who actually do know me personally.

  49. MK

    Deti: Agreed. If I were king of the world, Zippy’s view would be the law of the land tomorrow.

    Chuckle. This I strongly doubt. Men might think it great if women had to follow Zip’s laws, but it’s a package deal and methinks 99% of men would say you’ve got to be kidding when it comes to them. Thing like throwing out the birth control and any divorce option. Not to mention belief in the Eucharist, obeying bishops, the obedience of faith, praying to the communion of saints (yes Mary!), and tossing out OSAS and faith alone…). Zip offers a package deal only. Gulp.

    Deti: I do think I understand much better where you’re coming from and where the points of disagreement are.

    Back at you. Thanks for commenting. I always find your view informative.

    Zip: But the folks doing the complaining have no box of tools either

    Yes. I tried to say this above but you say it better.

  50. “that traditional patriarchal Christians are not offering a “solution” (other than “destroy feminism and restore patriarchy”).”

    That isn’t possible, not in this lifetime. People need compensations and ways to live now, not 75 years from now.

    “complaining have no box of tools either: the only thing they have to offer is embrace of degeneracy.”

    Not true. You have not seen me on this thread advocate any such thing. Patrick, not I, has been the one talking about Game.

    “If Zippy had his way then adulteresses and other rebellious women would face rather grim consequences for doing what is very much their fault.”

    I stand corrected. I must say, it’s the very first time I’ve ever read you say anything like that, anything like calling women to account for anything, and I’ve read much of your writings on this subject.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s