All the recent discussion on various blogs about the decline of marriage and fatherhood has got me to thinking. Suppose you were on a cruise ship that got sucked into a maelstrom and landed on an island in a parallel universe. While on the island, you notice a odd phenomenon about the natives. All the men insist on only marrying healthy, attractive women. However, they routinely deny women adequate nutrition, exercise, etc. The end result is that most women are not attractive enough for the men. Also, the men routinely ignore some of the women who are partially attractive because the men have such high standards. So many partially attractive women grow old without a husband. Then the men ignore these women even more and accuse these women of having issues. The men also complain about their being "not enough good women to go around."How would you feel about these men? How should one feel? You know where I am going with this, don't you? Yep, let's turn the tables. Now you know just how despicable many women are. There is a systemic problem with female expectations in this society. Let's face the facts: Men have been betrayed by women. When many of us were growing up in the shadow of feminism, we were told that women wanted equality. Did that mean true equality? Men were promised that they could be sensitive and they didn't have to be success objects. Men were led to believe that social dominance wasn't not as important as a man's character. Men were led to believe that women would love them for who they were and not for the roles people expected men to fulfill. It's all been a lie.
Too many women are not interested in equality as they are in "eekwalitee" (having their cake and eating it, too). Women are the choosier sex and often express a preference for socially dominant males (men who are confident, ambitious, resilient, industrious, and who have social assets - whether that be looks, wealth, intelligence, or whatever suits the whim of women for that given moment). After all, we are told that women need to pick wisely in order to maximize the benefit for their offspring.
And yet what have we seen?
1. Men being socially disenfranchised as women compete with them for social, legal, and economic power. Men are left scratching their heads. How can women expect men to provide something that women are taking away in the first place?
2. Men have been psychologically beaten down by an anti-male society. From an early age onward, they receive little or no affirmation or encouragement. They encounter very few positive male role models and they receive no real mentoring. Mostly it's blame, recrimination, ridicule, vilification, and neglect they receive at the hands of others and the hands of culture as a whole. The end result is that these men either don't have self-confidence or don't have any ambition (traits women find attractive in men). How could the men have these traits? How could they feel that they have a stake in a society that repeatedly demonstrates indifference, distrust, or outright hostility towards them? Again, how can anyone expect men to possess something that is being taken away in the first place?
The bottom line is that men are having an increasingly difficult time being what women want them to be. And what's even more disconcerting is that many women don't even seem to be bothered by that. It's make one wonder if women have just seen men as a means to an end: genetic material and resources for the offspring. Now that women can receive much of what they want without men, look how many of them act. Women in the mainstream media revel about the demise of men. If these women said similar things about blacks or Jews, they would be dismissed as mentally unhinged. Indeed, they are mentally unhinged, but very few people challenge these women on their sick, mindless, androphobic drivel.
Don't you dare tell me it's "the way women are" and that I need to deal with it. If we place social constraints on the behavior of men, then corresponding constraints need to be placed on women. Churches rant and rave about male promiscuity, the "male gaze", and men "being hung up on looks." Where are the church sermons that address the problem women have in objectifying men as success objects? Have you heard any lately? In the animal kingdom, a lot of female organisms work to accumulate resources for themselves and their offspring with little or no regard for others. Male organisms are reduced to a disposable resource. What are faith communities doing to challenge women to move beyond such a base mode of existence? We talk about a "Christian worldview" but I think a lot of conservative women act like Darwinists in their relationship with men. We are hypocritical when we suggest that masculinity and the male sex drive are sinfully disordered (a result of the Fall, or whatever), but the behavior of women is just "something natural" and the "way they were designed." Excuse me, but I have a difficult time believing the Creator designed women to treat men like tools, or worse, like garbage.
A lot of women are being incredibly foolish if they think society can move on just fine without being concerned about the welfare of men. Readers should take note of this: Women have no power unless men consent to it. That even goes for sexual power. If men don't have a personal stake in the welfare of future generations, then there won't be any future generations. If a critical mass of men start caring more about video games than about impregnating women and parenting the resultant offspring, then this society will fall flat on its face (or it will be replaced by something more rooted in reality). The future is not independent-minded white women. The future is traditionalist, brown-skinned women of an "ancient and enduring" people "whose language you do not know."
Women can't expect to play "top dog" and yet be married to the "top dog." There can only be one "top dog." Embracing gender equality means ditching the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm). Embracing the Alpha Male Fantasy(tm) means ditching gender equality. Remember what I said about the New Gender Deal. Women can't have it both ways.
People also need to start showing genuine compassion, concern, and respect for men as human beings; they need stop acting like men need to earn these things. Otherwise, an increasing amount of men are going to get the idea that nobody genuinely and honestly cares about their inherent worth as people. When men start believing that, they are not going to show much care and concern in return. I think that lies at the heart of much of the crimes men commit.
In short, if nothing changes, then women are going to destroy this society. It's going to be a classic case of the Tragedy of Commons. You don't like me talking about women? Too bad. There's going to be little or no real progress for men and women until women get their act together and rethink their behavior. We can blame the government, the liberals, the New World Order, technology, chivalrous men, genes, or whatever, but here's the indisputable truth: A critical mass of women are primarily responsible for the mess that has come about. Someone needs to point this out. When women constantly belittle, demean, and marginalize men at every turn, someone needs to say something. When women try to have their "eekwalitee" cake and eat it too, giving men the shaft in the process, someone needs to say something. Otherwise, the whole mess is going to explode in the face of women, and they will have no one to cry to.
66 comments:
Your 100% correct.
But lets be honest standing upto feminism will cause a man to lose jobs or be constantly passed over. Will cause him to become almost a social outcast as well and could even cost him more than that including loss of freedom, children etc.
Not that the current situation doesn't already do that but most of these men still have hope if they become sheep they will get something.
I have been screaming about feminism for well over a decade and it has cost me dearly at least in the workplace and for a while legally. Yet not all men can openly oppose it and we need to help them realize they can.
We've made contact. MSM, albeit only a fringe element, has picked up on the concept of "Marriage 2.0".
Cathy Meyer, who is About.com's divorce support guru, has used the term in her latest post.
http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2009/07/10/marriage-2-0.htm
Based on the timing, the language used, and on mentioning "blogs by men" that she read, I suspect "first-contact" was through the WSJ Kay Hymowitz thread last weekend where a couple of us MGTOW'ers had made some good comments, including liberal use of the Marriage 2.0 term.
The best part is, Cathy Meyer is inviting folks to discuss "what can be done about the future of marriage" right on her About.com comments thread.
Let's keep pushing this term into the mainstream, as this is our IN to start fresh dialogue on some shitty current doctrines ("No-Fault Alimony", Single-Custody, Visitation Rights, etc).
Women do not have any power over men that men do not give them. I can't understand what MRAs are perpetually crying about. If she is more trouble than she is worth kick her to the curb. What is so freaking hard about that?
Spoken like a true omega, Anakin. This is hardly the experience of most men, who adjust their expectations over time and marry their equal or better. What do you call that..."code purple"?
Excellent rant, Anakin. I added my thoughts on my blog.
I especially liked your last paragraph about how this isn't the fault so much of liberals, the NWO, etc., but a critical mass of women. That is a drum I have been beating for a while now. It pisses me off anytime someone blames the Rockefellers, the NWO, etc. for feminism. It does nothing but let women shirk responsiblity.
Of course the Democrat party is far more likely to pass the kind of legislation and promote the anti-male thinking than the republicans would be. They are the party of social programs, abortion, and many of these other messes.
So, while republicans are quite bad, dems are worse.
Only women and manginas vote democrat, as the party currently stands.
Obama=mangina
McCain=Man
Hell, Palin is more a man that Zero.
New OS?
Yep.
All the American men are MicroSOFT, and the women are out banging Ubuntu.
Ifyaknowhatimean.
Spoken like a true omega, Anakin. This is hardly the experience of most men, who adjust their expectations over time and marry their equal or better. What do you call that..."code purple"?
It's called code mangina, Catwoman!
"Women have no power unless men consent to it."
I am not sure I can agree with you here. Women have typically had huge power over children. And Steve McNair and Mr. Winkler and the recently stangled boxer would have a few things to say about the power of women.
Trey
Anakin, I do not want my last post to be taken as a snark, it was not sent that way, so let me expoud as I wait for my patient to show up.
I think of the power my wife and mother and coworkers (the vast majority of them female) have.
First, I think of the power of the prayer and Holy Spirit in their lives. Next, I think of the power of sacrificial love and kindness. Then I think of the opposite of those virtues. I just keep banging my head against my deep seated belief that women have power outside and apart from men, and vice versa.
Could you and the other posters help me understand your position a little better?
Thanks!
Trey
expound even.
Sheesh, more coffee.
Trey - whose word verification was crumpent
Mangina??? ROFLMAO! I had coffee coming out of my nose when I read that.
"From an early age onward, they receive little or"
What? As far as most mothers are concerned, her son can do no wrong. I think you're telling us something about your childhood, Anakin.
Lots of snark here for a good post.
A few comments.
1. Women and power. TMink is right that women have their own power base: sex, relationships, children. Woman are the gatekeepers for all three of these things, all of which men generally desire. It's true, in a sense, that men could disempower women with respect to themselves by avoiding children, sex and relationships, but that's a huge price to pay, and one most men are not interested in paying.
At the same time, it's very true that feminism itself, and all of the *new* powers that were handed to women in the last several decades would not have happened without men agreeing and giving it to them. In that sense, it's very true to say that women would not have the empowerment they have now had men not given it to them.
2. Women and choosiness. What has happened here is that feminist indoctrination has gotten ahead of what real women want. Real women want the same things in men that they have always wanted: a combination of social status, physical attractiveness and, for some women, common values. Trouble was that the feminist movement has been very successful in removing male role models from boys and young men, and instead replacing the guidance that would have come from those role models with feminist claptrap about boys and young men essentially needing to be more like women. Even someone like William Pollack, who claims to advocate for boys, thinks that the problem is masculinity, and that boys need to be more like girls, essentially. The therapy community is of the same view. But, as I say, none of these people is really clued in to the reality that women are not attracted to men who are like *women*. So you have the culture, which is continuously molding boys and young men into more feminine modes, running headlong against female attraction, and a train wreck resulting. What women are attracted to has not changed as a result of feminism and likely will never change.
3. Equality and hypergamy. Here is an area where another blogger gets it right, I think -- in this case Whiskey. As Whiskey explains, equality and hypergamy actually do go hand in hand because equality frees women up from having to "settle" for a less-hypergamously-satisfying mate due to economic dependence or social pressure to marry, and instead pursue the Alpha Male Fantasy. In fact, one way of looking at feminism as a whole is that the movement was designed from the beginning to enable women to pursue their own sexual interest which, as we see from romance novels and so on, typically involves chasing after the "hero" men and spurning all of the other suitors. In a world where women do not need men economically, and where social taboos around being unmarried, and even being a single mother, have been erased, the stage is set for the relentless and unremitting pursuit of the Alpha Male Fantasy for as long as it can be pulled off. Now, this doesn't mean all women are doing this -- not at all. But a good number are, and the ones who are, are enabled to do so because of the equality (access to education and work) that feminism gave them. The two go hand in hand, really.
4. Demographics. I think you're quite right, Anakin, that the issue will kind of resolve itself demographically. The most independent sorts are not breeding terribly well, and they will be outbred by others. The "SWPL" demographic, for example, is not breeding at replacement levels currently. If that continues, and there's no reason to think that it won't, the issue will resolve itself in a few generations. Of course the resulting civilization will be a different one from our own, but such transitions are par for the course in human history.
Novaseeker,
What is your definition of "alpha male"?
1) Guy who can be "the leader" and "the provider."
or
2) Pretty boy who cleans the pool.
Some may be having romps with 2, but it is a short-lived thing. Women are definitely not getting more access to #1 (which is the "Alpha Male" that's primarily under purview in my post).
-----
TMInk,
I think I agree with Novaseeker on women and power ...
1. Women and power. TMink is right that women have their own power base: sex, relationships, children. Woman are the gatekeepers for all three of these things, all of which men generally desire. It's true, in a sense, that men could disempower women with respect to themselves by avoiding children, sex and relationships, but that's a huge price to pay, and one most men are not interested in paying.
At the same time, it's very true that feminism itself, and all of the *new* powers that were handed to women in the last several decades would not have happened without men agreeing and giving it to them. In that sense, it's very true to say that women would not have the empowerment they have now had men not given it to them.
I daresay the even power women have in sex, relationships, and family is not ironclad as men get turned off on the whole "commitment" and "Marriage 2.0" thing.
I daresay the even power women have in sex, relationships, and family is not ironclad as men get turned off on the whole "commitment" and "Marriage 2.0" thing.
That is true. This is the reason why my blog exists. As soon as men have some alternatives through technology for these things watch how women lose their power. And they're never going to get it back.
Anakin --
"What is your definition of "alpha male"?
1) Guy who can be "the leader" and "the provider."
or
2) Pretty boy who cleans the pool.
Some may be having romps with 2, but it is a short-lived thing. Women are definitely not getting more access to #1 (which is the "Alpha Male" that's primarily under purview in my post)."
It's situational, I think.
What I mean is that there are two markets: the casual dating/relationship market and the more serious dating/mating market.
In the former, it's all about sexual spark and attraction. Socially dominant men win out here, and most other men are not wanted for those kind of casual relationships today. This is a phenomenon most common among the young, but it's not only there. So in this group it isn't really the pool boy, but the socially dominant guy at the bar.
In the latter, the lens shifts to men who bring other things to the table: stability, the ability to contribute to family life, character qualities and so on.
The issue is that many men are being passed over while the women are in market 1 when they are young, and by the time they get to market 2, the men are not interested in them, or the best of the kinds of men that are most highly valued in market 2 terms are already married.
"I daresay the even power women have in sex, relationships, and family is not ironclad as men get turned off on the whole "commitment" and "Marriage 2.0" thing."
Yes, it's true, to a certain extent, but women are also adapatable. Surprising numbers of them are now dealing with the male reluctance to commit by avoiding market 2 entirely and becoming single mothers. By doing that they still maintain control over children and reproduction, quite independently of men, and remain available for market 1 type relationships if they wish.
It's not a particularly "fair" situation, in that women have power in these areas -- but it's pretty deeply seated. Monogamy, of course, is the counterweight to this power, and something that levels the playing field between the sexes. I think that's at least part of the reason it's mandated by God, as well. For when you remove monogamy (in terms of social/legal/moral opprobrium/prohibition), the power situation when it comes to relationships, sexuality and children shifts decisively in the favor of one sex, as we can see in the culture today. It's not "natural" for it to be this way: there is nothing natural about medical abortion procedures on demand and artificial contraceptives, both of which remove the "natural" consequences for sexuality for women, if they wish. And there is nothing natural about debunking monogamous pair bonds, either. The current scenario is decidedly un-natural, and that's why it's resulted in such a slanted power balance in these areas.
In order to restore the balance, monogamy must return. That's very hard to achieve in practice, though, given the political and social realities of today.
"The issue is that many men are being passed over while the women are in market 1 when they are young, and by the time they get to market 2, the men are not interested in them, or the best of the kinds of men that are most highly valued in market 2 terms are already married."
This sounds as if most young women are into "market 1", that being casual sex, and most young men aren't, or wouldn't be if it weren't for the women. That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, since it has always been a rite of passage for young men to "sow their wild oats". You'll be hard pressed to find anything that supports the notion that women are more promiscuious than men, or are "driving" trends towards promiscuity, which is driven mostly by lower ratios of males to females (google "sociosexuality" for some *really* eye opening stuff about trends in sexual behavior across cultures).
"Surprising numbers of them are now dealing with the male reluctance to commit by avoiding market 2 entirely and becoming single mothers."
This seems to be plateauing quite a bit, especially with educated women in their thirties who haven't created quite as much of a single mom baby boom as was expected. The trend seems more toward declining number of births in general.
To step back a bit, after reading this post and the accompanying comments, I found this interesting article a few years old from a local online newspaper.
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2004/06/24/Steakhouse_Guys/
Some of its sentiments mirror the ones brought up in this blog. And there's only one negative comment out of 33. Even the lesbian has good things to say about the men here. What do you think?
Guys, I'm 45 and divorced. I recommend men do what I do now. Live in a lovely apartment, do interesting work, and never give a woman a key. I date only eastern european women. All the western ones are crap. And I date in 30-35 range because I make money. Just ignore western women. None of them a worth a cracker any more.
I have to say that I am rather skeptical of studies regarding sociosexuality and so on because there truly is no way of really knowing whether respondents are being truthful. Women are incented socially, even today, to understate their sexual experiences, while men still tend to overstate them.
I also think that there is a considerable "lag". In other words, what is happening in the very young today simply has not been measured in studies yet, so the studies really do not reflect what is currently happening. I recall an NPR story from last month, for example, where several educated mid-20s women were interviewed and they admitted that they eschewed relationships and dating, and simply opted for short-term sexual hookups. They explained that this was not because it was all that was available, but specifically that they preferred this -- it was their choice, in other words.
That experience is fairly new, I think, and is off the radar screen of the academic studies on this, so far.
I don't see single motherhood plateauing -- we just scored the highest percentage of OOW births in history. Of course that number is racially and socioeconomically skewed, but nevertheless the number is up, across the various demographics.
I expect that the educational demographics disaster that is shaping up will probably intensify these behaviors. That is, there will be a persistently lower ratio of "eligible" men for women, based on education level, and that will tend to continue to drive up rates of female promiscuity, as well as single motherhood (again, not enough suitable mates) and lower overall birth rates.
It's true that male promiscuity is still around. But focusing on that obscures what has changed --> female sexual behavior. We can argue about what % of women are impacted by this, how representative the women in the NPR story are, whether there are regional or other differences in behavior and so on, but the main story is that female behaviors have changed, for some unspecified % of the female population.
If you take a closer look at those studies on sociosexuality, they show that promiscuious men and women are a different breed, and fortunately, in the minority. We should just leave them to their own skankery and get on with life. The geeks, of both sexes, shall inherit the earth.
Would that it were so simple.
The popular culture glorifies such behavior, and so the cultural and social impact of it reaches far beyond the actual participants, regardless of what that number may be (and, again, I am skeptical of many of such studies due to the issues of accurate reporting on these behaviors).
I'm also not so sure the geeks will inherit the earth. The problem with that theory is that, in the years ahead, there are just going to be far fewer male geeks who are marriageable, due to what is happening right now in education. Unless that turns around (and turning around is not predicted, at least not in the short term), educated women are going to substantially outnumber educated men. The impact of that on dating/mating should be obvious: the competition among women for the men who *are* marriageable will be even more intense, on the one hand while, on the other, OOW motherhood seems sure to rise as a % of total births, together with an overall decline in the birth rate.
So, really, for quite a few reasons, cloudy skies are ahead of us.
>>> The popular culture glorifies such behavior, and so the cultural and social impact of it reaches far beyond the actual participants, regardless of what that number may be. <<<
Good call, Nova! Think of the geeks who have participated in the raunch culture with their own personalized tramp stamp, arse antler, slag tag, gigalogo, and other body modifications.
Since the truth CAN be skewed by these so-called controlled studies, one might fair just as well with their reliance on anecdotal thinking where one draws conclusions from their personal experiences. When it comes to women and what they want in a relationship, like Devlin and so many others have stated before, "Dont't listen to what they say, but rather pay careful attention to what they do".
PMAFT wrote: "As soon as men have some alternatives through technology for these things watch how women lose their power."
I cannot agree with you pal. My wife cannot be replaced by technology and I love her for more than the sex and kids.
She is my partner, she adds perspective, she helps me feel better when I am discouraged, she makes me laugh and smile.
I don't see that as replaceable.
If she were to die soon, I am not sure I would remarry. I wonder what would be the point.
It is not just that she is a good person, though she is. It is that she loves God and listens to His Holy Spirit. That is the basis of our love and joy, and it is likely the only basis worth having.
Trey
"The impact of that on dating/mating should be obvious: the competition among women for the men who *are* marriageable will be even more intense, on the one hand while, on the other, OOW motherhood seems sure to rise as a % of total births, together with an overall decline in the birth rate."
Things plateau, and move in cycles. Don't worry. Enjoy your summer.
>>> The popular culture glorifies such behavior, and so the cultural and social impact of it reaches far beyond the actual participants, regardless of what that number may be. <<<
This is all so much "Moral Panic", definition, as follows:
Moral Panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:
Concern - There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
Hostility - Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
Consensus - Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
Disproportionality - The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
Volatility - Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.
I cannot agree with you pal. My wife cannot be replaced by technology and I love her for more than the sex and kids.
What about the rest of us who can't find such a good woman? If you are here then you know that there are very few good women out there, and that there aren't anywhere near enough for all of the good men out there. The 99.9% of us who can't find a good woman (since they are that rare) will have to make do with other options.
I dunno, catwoman. I don't agree that "all of this is no big deal, it's a normal cycle, nothing to see here, etc."
Just not what I see when I look at the world.
Things *are* changing, as they always are. I do not see many of these changes as being positive. On that it's likely that we disagree, and a part of that disagreement is based on the respective sex of the bodies we find ourselves in.
Here's the thing, I don't do any of the things you are talking about and I find myself mystified and totally devalued as a woman because I have alot of my dates trying to use me for sex. As a result I am back in church because, if nothing else, I will be treated as a sister in Christ. I KNOW that not all men are like this. Yet I find myself in a crisis of sorts. I'm going to have to put dream of sharing my life aside and learn how to take care of myself--though I've often been told that I am quite cute.
PMAFT, that is a stumper. And it saddens me to hear the pain and longing in your post.
I just don't know what to say other than I am sorry, and I know God hears our prayers. My prayer is that He answers your with rich blessings.
God bless you pal.
Trey
"Here's the thing, I don't do any of the things you are talking about and I find myself mystified and totally devalued as a woman because I have alot of my dates trying to use me for sex. As a result I am back in church because, if nothing else, I will be treated as a sister in Christ. I KNOW that not all men are like this. Yet I find myself in a crisis of sorts. I'm going to have to put dream of sharing my life aside and learn how to take care of myself--though I've often been told that I am quite cute."
SavvyD --
The trouble is that there are really two markets here: (1) the casual sex market and (2) the dating/mating market. There is some overlap between the two in terms of men who appear to be looking in market 2, but are in fact looking in market 1, even though they may be on "dates". The problem that men and women alike face as a result of this system is that market 1 has too many participants, on the one hand, and, on the other, casts a shadow over market 2. There are, in fact, good men and women around, but many of them have been burned by market 1 participants, while others are simply not successful even when confining their efforts to market 2.
The sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus did their best to recruit me...I'm going to post about that on my blog. I do make myself laugh at the absurd things life throws me. With the guys I have met recently at church, I am just my cute self and hope that one of them will be for me at some point.
You'll find someone. You really will, given what I have read on your blog.
PMAFT, that is a stumper. And it saddens me to hear the pain and longing in your post.
I just don't know what to say other than I am sorry, and I know God hears our prayers. My prayer is that He answers your with rich blessings.
I'm pretty sure that God has answered this prayer with, "Don't bother trying to get married. You're better off alone." Since there isn't enough good women for all the good men out there for each good man God delivers a good woman to, another 5000 (or maybe 10000 or 25000) good men have to go without. Why should God pick me over them?
God isn't going to override the free will of anyone to rewrite the personality of any woman much less sufficient numbers of women to make a difference. So I end up getting my prayers answered with how I'm better off alone. And God is correct.
This is why the future is all sex bots and artificial wombs.
PMAFT--not sure where you are. In some places it is harder than other places--or so I hear. And for some reason I can't seem to determine, the times when I have met a genuinely nice guy, he wasn't always interested in me or the timing was wrong. Perhaps there is someone you have overlooked?
this isn't the fault so much of liberals, the NWO, etc., but a critical mass of women
Well, the groups may be started up independently, but then 'THEY' find a group that accomplishes their aim and fund the crap out of it. Fill it with lawyers, PR people and intellectuals. Somehow now this group has media access too.
The conspiracy guys claim that ANY group at all, with any political clout has been infiltrated. I believe this.
I have wanted to start some radical fringe group (populated entirely with friends, under the pretense of writing a book) and see who shows up and then film the provocateurs.
But I don't have rich minority lawyers as parents, so I would end up dead.
I would mention that in my country, the head feminist org is FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funded, but I can't, because that would be classified as hate speech, and I am so afraid of my Federal Government.
I might also mention that that organization was about 200K in the hole, with no receipts to back up the expenditures (FRAUD? nah, STUPIDITY), but after some humming and hawing and dithering and flip flopping, the funding went through.
You'll know what government I talk about when the cease and desist order to remove this post shows up on their letterhead.
It is a G8 country which two letter country code.
You'll notice that this country has no pro male websites as there is another government funded agency taking them down.
Pro male websites are considered hate speech by my federal government, and the dickless MINO (Men In Name Only) lawyers that head up the law departments in our universities are SILENT.
Somehow, there are a lot of silent lawyers.
BOARD MODERATORS: How many lawyers are offering to help? How many lawyers are on the link page of your sites to help distressed men? How many lawyers are writing the legalase and the powerful words that we need?
NONE!
BOARD MODERATORS: How many donations of over a 1000 bucks have you recieved? This week?
Has Soros or Gates or Forbes or any other of other Richest Men In the World helped out?
NO!
Because it suits them.
------------------------
Anyways, I refute the premise that 'Powerful Organization are Not Involved.'
PMAFT--not sure where you are. In some places it is harder than other places--or so I hear. And for some reason I can't seem to determine, the times when I have met a genuinely nice guy, he wasn't always interested in me or the timing was wrong. Perhaps there is someone you have overlooked?
FACEPALM
You really don't get it. Do you? Read Anakin's original post on this thread. Read it 10 more times.
There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman.
Even if the lack of good women wasn't an issue, there has never been any women who have ever been interested in me. Not a single one. As a woman you have no idea what that is like since every woman even the bottom of the barrel women always have men interested in them.
I have talked to lots of men who have these exact same experiences. It isn't unique to me.
This is why the future is all sex bots and artificial wombs.
PMAFT: Not sure the sexbots will have that much traction within the Christian realm.
On the other hand, there are about 3 billion men in the world, many of whom never marry and many of them having no compelling moral reason to eschew high-tech porn. So there will definitely be a market for the sexbots.
Still, among Christian men, I just don't see them taking off. Porn is one thing--truth be told, that is hardly restricted to singles, Christian or not--but sexbots are a whole different...species.
Moreover, sexbots would almost certainly require a substantial amount of wealth for one to afford. Such a sophisticated robot would be quite expensive.
I'm also not so sure that artificial wombs would have that much traction, either. I just don't see men lining up to consumate a techno-marriage, and even have children with, Robo-Barbie.
HELP!!!
Girls, for just 43 cents, YOU can make a difference in a man's life!!!!
Moreover, sexbots would almost certainly require a substantial amount of wealth for one to afford. Such a sophisticated robot would be quite expensive.
Yes, the hand would be far cheaper. I can see them selling accessories: "Now, with digital surround sound, you can have your sexbot moan like a whore."
That, alone, might cost a few extra bucks (or laughs).
Seriously, though, I just can't buy into artificial intelligence as a "replacement source". I'm disenchanted by the whole concept of a sexbot. Not that these things will not occur in the future. I watched the movie Serenity, and thought it was definitely creepy that a guy would marry a bot (which more likely would probably become the next step in the devolutionary chain}.
So, what is man accomplishing here? This IS NOT going to replace his loneliness, neither will it give him emotional support, nor the fact that he is having sex with an expensive piece of machinery that comes packaged without a "free will", something that God instills within each of us. Take away the free will and the soul and what have you left? In the end, taking this path can only lead man to more desolation and emotional detachment. Moreover, if I cannot have sex with someone who wants me as much as I want her, then I'd rather not have it at all. Period.
We're already living in an environment that doesn't care much about giving a hand to their next door neighbors. Do we really need more "isolation" to go even further backwards? As it stands, the whole subject with sexbots is rather creepy. Just my honest opinion.
What will come first, and actually quite soon, is some sort of increased physical sensations from online interactions -- electrodes or body suits or what have you that allow the internet to convey sensation to the wearer. That will come before sexbots, and it will grow like weeds due to the porn industry, and it will likely lead to quite a bit of virtual prostitution.
True sex bots will be quite expensive and out of the range of most men, at least at first. But given the high consumption rates of porn, I can't help but imagine that sex bots will be popular, if they are an accessible technology.
Futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks that the 21st century is going to see major advances in AI, including perhaps the creation of a sentient artificial being. Personally I think that is way off in time, but I'm not as sophisticated about that stuff as Kurzweil is. In any case, he predicts that eventually sentient machines will be given legal rights, and humans will seek to merge their consciousness into machines to achieve some kind of immortality, albeit at the cost of their humanity. Pretty chilling stuff from the perspective of Christian believers, I think, if we ever get close to being able to do such things.
@Amir
Still, among Christian men, I just don't see them taking off. Porn is one thing--truth be told, that is hardly restricted to singles, Christian or not--but sexbots are a whole different...species.
How many Christian women have vibrators? Quite a few, I bet.
I think its more appropriate to think about sex bots in terms of masturbation rather than porn. God has not commanded us to not masturbate so God is fine with us masturbating. (The story of Onan has nothing to do with masturbation before anyone brings that up.)
Also, its important to remember that this isn't about saving Christianity (God doesn't need us to save Him) or saving Western Civilization. It's about saving civilization, period. If women aren't stopped then they will destroy civilization, all civilizations. So even if only non-Christian guys go for sex bots the positive effects from it will still be there.
I'm also not so sure that artificial wombs would have that much traction, either. I just don't see men lining up to consumate a techno-marriage, and even have children with, Robo-Barbie.
An artificial womb isn't a robot (by itself at least) so you wouldn't marry it. People getting married to AIs (robotic or otherwise) is a separate issue.
@Someone
So, what is man accomplishing here?
The reduction of female sexual power is what is being (or rather will be) accomplished. As Anakin pointed out women are destroying society, but women only have power if men give it to them. The problem is that because of sex too many men won't stand up to women. Thus we need other options such as sex bots.
@Novaseeker
What will come first, and actually quite soon, is some sort of increased physical sensations from online interactions -- electrodes or body suits or what have you that allow the internet to convey sensation to the wearer. That will come before sexbots, and it will grow like weeds due to the porn industry, and it will likely lead to quite a bit of virtual prostitution.
This is an excellent point. Look at how many women complain about the time men are spending playing video games and most of the games men are playing aren't even something could be an alternative to women. Even haptic body suits would have a serious societal effect.
True sex bots will be quite expensive and out of the range of most men, at least at first. But given the high consumption rates of porn, I can't help but imagine that sex bots will be popular, if they are an accessible technology.
And remember technology gets cheaper over time.
Futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks that the 21st century is going to see major advances in AI, including perhaps the creation of a sentient artificial being. Personally I think that is way off in time, but I'm not as sophisticated about that stuff as Kurzweil is. In any case, he predicts that eventually sentient machines will be given legal rights, and humans will seek to merge their consciousness into machines to achieve some kind of immortality, albeit at the cost of their humanity.
Ray Kurzweil suffers from the same problem as other people who predict the future, overestimating what happens in the short term and underestimating what happens in the long term. I'm not sure how anyone would "lose their humanity" in uploading their mind. Anyone would still be themselves even after the fact, and it probably won't quite work the way most people think it would (i.e. you're not going to end up a borg).
I disagree concerning masturbation. Not about the Biblical injunction, though I would like to know how you see Onan as irrelevent. 8)
Masturbation interferes with my relationship with my wife, as does porn, as would hooking myself up to the computer. That hurts my marriage, so I eschew it.
Trey
That parallel universe sounds like real life to me.
If men live in such a feminist society, why is it still proven that when it comes to some jobs, a man is more likely to be paid more than a woman who does the same work? If men live in such a feminist society, why is it women are starving themselves to fit the profile men seek and yet it's alright for a man to be overweight? We do not live in this feminist society you're describing. "Reviving Ophelia: Saving The Selves of Adolescent Girls" by Mary Pipher contains several stories of girls suffering to "fit in" to this materialistic society which objectifies women. I personally take this "rant" as a way to continue controlling women. Especially, "Readers should take note of this: Women have no power unless men consent to it," which is truly offending. Damn right I want equality, but not that "eekwalitee" bull you're spewing. You claim you want equality for men but this "rant" says otherwise.
Anonymous –
If men live in such a feminist society, why is it still proven that when it comes to some jobs, a man is more likely to be paid more than a woman who does the same work?
Actually, numerous studies have shown (including ones by the DOL) that the so-called “wage gap” relates almost entirely due to women making different choices when it comes to work than men do: working in different jobs, working fewer hours, and so on. It’s not based in sexist discrimination, but simply women’s choices about how to arrange their lives.
If men live in such a feminist society, why is it women are starving themselves to fit the profile men seek and yet it's alright for a man to be overweight?
You can’t change what men and women respectively find attractive. That is based on biology. Men and women won’t be “more equal” if men miraculously deleted physical beauty from their attractional vectors, even if that were possible. Why? Because women, even high-powered, independent ones, still prefer men who are taller than they are, and their equal or, preferably, better in terms of education, income, and social status. Feminism has done nothing to uproot female hypergamy, because it can’t – that is wired, just as is the male attraction to female physical beauty. And female sexual desire is also based on being desirable. This stuff is a central part of who we are, and no sociopolitical ideology or legislative program will ever change that. Suggesting that this reflects inequality between the sexes is the same as saying that the fact that men and women professional basketball players don’t compete against each other is also indicative of inequality. It is not. It is simply reflective of the very real *differences* that exist between the sexes – differences which the feminist ideology disrespects, pretends are not there, and yet ultimately is powerless to dislodge.
We do not live in this feminist society you're describing. "Reviving Ophelia: Saving The Selves of Adolescent Girls" by Mary Pipher contains several stories of girls suffering to "fit in" to this materialistic society which objectifies women.
And says precisely nothing about the vast majority of young men who are literally shunned by women under the new rules of the feminist – yes, feminist – sexual revolution. And nothing about the fact that it is boys, not girls, who are falling behind, suffering from lower matriculation rates than girls, lower graduation rates and so on. But, no, the focus has to be on girls who despite the fact that they are skyrocketing past boys academically, are insecure about their appearance. Sheesh.
PMAFT--have a look at Jon LaJoie's videos on YouTube. You might get a kick out of them. I know I do. He is both put upon and instigator.
I've gone on dates with guys who thought they had it going on but didn't treat me with any sense of respect as a woman. Some were so bad I haven't even listed them on my blog. Finding myself not married, I have to focus on finding a career and surrounding myself with guys who have a positive social reputation and develop those.
PMAFT,
"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."
So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet you definition of a "good woman"?
That ind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?
Wonderful article...THANK YOU
Please check out my blog at rebukingfeminism.blogspot
and my youtube channel red0660
That's an awful lot of typing just to say "I can't get any!"
And, Vysota, that's an awful short, rhetoric, smart-ass sentence just to say, "I'm a gynocentric, mangina-minded cyber troll!"
"Mangina"? What are you, 12? I know you're a few years behind the curve, but even then... mangina? Really? You think you're witty? You think you're "cutting edge"? You think you're "boss", or "neato", or "dynomite" or something? Darling, a small penis is no substitute for a large brain.
More empty rhetoric and still no exposition. Don't overtax that large brain, Modok.
I guess when you can't get any you spend your time reading comic books. How's your WoW character doing, Dude?
Also, exposition of what? Anakin's desperate cry for girls to like him? That needs about as much "exposition" as Michael Jackson's Peter Pan complex did.
Hey Anakin -- like looking into a crystal ball, ain't it?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_health_club_shooting
Hope it doesn't end this way.
Wheedle away chatterbox; one day you'll actually have something useful to say.
And one day a woman will show you her boobies, dude. And that day you will celebrate like you just won the Super Bowl.
It is high time that you stop substituting personal insults and infantile drivel for meaningful argumentation. Your pathological psychosis and shallow rhetoric aside, I fail to see how your conclusion follows from Anakin's premises here. In fact, you really have no argument, just bald assertions and absurd stereotypes. As such, you're poisoning the well.
The Dude -- there is no "well". There is a muddy puddle. Me urinating in it changes nothing, you've drank enough disgusting crap from the puddle that some of my urine won't hurt.
Anakin's argument? He has none. "Waaaah! Women are emasculating me. They don't like me. I'm a whining ninny and can't get a girlfriend because I'm a whining ninny. Aren't there girls who like whining ninnies?" That's not an "argument". That's a gold mine for a shrewd shrink. Anakin has real mental problems: depression, feelings of castration. He has deep-seated issues with women which, almost certainly, spring from how he was treated by his mother or mother figure in his life. As such I pity the pathetic fool. But "mommy didn't love me enough" can only go so far.
For someone who gives pretense to great intellectual insight, your chosen diversions into logical fallacies and false assumptions are rather lowbrow.
It seems to me you're just angry - at what, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's the anti-male agitprop.
Do you simply jerk off to how much of a run-on sentence you can type up, the dude?
And what I'm saying is not "great intellectual insight". It's blatantly obvious to anyone without a serious castration complex. That's like coming out and saying "Glenn Beck is batshit crazy" or "Kevin Spacey is a good actor" or "Sun sets in the West". You really don't need a PhD for this one.
Throughout your postings, all you've provided is mere assertions, tortured metaphors, Ad Hominem attacks, vacuous whining about Anakin's whining, juvenile tantrums, cliched sound bites, continued anger, and, amusement.
There's nothing here, dearie.
Really. Move on.
Comment threads like this inspire strong emotions. If you can't handle it, stay away. Or, you might stop gorging your 300 pound body with donuts and candy, take a few deep breaths before launching yourself at the keyboard, and add something besides angry flailing. I'm really trying to figure out if you're half the intelligent person you claim to be, and so far, it's not looking good.
I'm not whining about Anakin's whining (at least you do admit that this tool is whining, that's a healthy start). I'm ridiculing it. I'm sorry you find it so hard to tell the difference.
What's there to provide on this thread? How does one add to an article whose only point is "girls don't like me because I'm a loser"? Ummm, ok, fine, you want something constructive? Here we go: Anakin, get a psychiatrist and a hobby. A psychiatrist will help you sort out some of your mommy issues, and girl like boys with hobbies. Also -- shower. You should do that.
Your turn, the dude. Help this poor tortured soul.
vysota is one of those femtards.
Earthworms are more productive in this world than a femtard.
This piece reminds me of NiceGuy's story about getting lucky in a bar. My favourite line from that essay:
Ladies, we're trying to have a civilization, here! We live in a society where a woman can suddenly run-up to a man, gleefully punch him in the face for fun, and run-off giggling. And there's not a damn thing the man can do about it without getting his ass into trouble.
So damn true.
Post a Comment