I've already reblogged Part I.
The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society
Sexual dysfunction is not unique to the twenty-first century—nor, certainly, to the West. Japan's "herbivores"—men who shun sex and prefer saving money and going on long walks to riding motorcycles and flirting with girls—have been well documented and are regarded by social scientists as the best example of male sexuality turning in on itself.
But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males, has a different flavour to it and dramatically different aetiology from previously observed social crises, many characteristics are identical. And what's troubling about men throwing in the towel in both East and West is the rapidity with which the malaise is spreading across entire generations, fuelled not just by sexual dissatisfaction but also the economic and educational pressures felt by so many young boys.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. It's little wonder that in the disorientating modern world, men should seek out extreme measures to help them relate to, and gebrt what they want from, the opposite sex. That probably explains the rise of Julien Blanc, who claims his seminars can transform the way women will respond to you. Blanc is at the extreme end of a movement known as "pick-up artists" or PUAs.
But other voices in the PUA or "red pill" movements, including Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the pen name Roosh V, says there are structural reasons why society is evolving away from inter-gender contentment. Part of the problem is unrealistic female expectations, says Valizadeh. "Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men. Women today of average or even below average quality desire an elite man with above-average looks, muscles, intelligence, and confidence.
"If an average girl works hard enough, she will be able to have a one-night stand with a 'hot' guy every now and then because he happened to be horny and wanted an easy lay. The girl then thinks that she actually can get such a man to commit to her for the long term, and so doesn't give the average guys a chance, holding out for the type of stud that she had a brief sexual encounter with in the past."
Valizadeh has some controversial views on the state of modern womanhood, too. He says: "It's also damaging that the attractiveness of women is rapidly declining, mainly due to the obesity epidemic. No matter what members of the 'fat acceptance' movement say, men have an innate need for fit women. What happens is the few attractive girls left get unimaginable amounts of attention."
According to Valizadeh, today's sexual marketplace represents a Pareto distribution in which "20 percent of the top guys have access to 80 percent of the best women," which has the effect of leaving women holding out for the perfect man, a man who of course never comes.
Valizadeh agrees with masculinity author Jack Donovan that men have been feminised by a culture that rejects and ridicules male characteristics and habits. "Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men," he remarks. These thoughts are echoed on occasionally rude but compelling male-oriented blogs, such as the phenomenally popular Chateau Heartiste.
They are also supported by the current state of the sex wars, which are constituted bizarrely. One of the remarkable things about recent high-profile skirmishes with feminists is how few mainstream heterosexual men have been involved. In the GamerGate video games controversy, opposition to "social justice warriors" and their attempts at censorship on Twitter has come from older gay men in public life and younger geeks, gamers and drop-outs; in the case of Matt Taylor, it was geeks and other women.
Straight young men simply don't want to know any more. They're not getting involved. Some women, too, horrified by what lesbianised third-wave feminism claims to do in their name, opt out of the argument. The absurd result is that geeks, queers and dykes are dominating the discussion about how men and women should interact. Jack Donovan, for example, is gay, as is your present correspondent. It's as if gays are the only men left prepared to fight masculinity's corner.
Men want normal relationships that include sex, says Valizadeh. Some of them will read pick-up artist books or go to seminars by people such as Roosh V if they don't get it or need to be trained out of "white knight" behaviours instilled in them by a female-dominated culture. (Men have been taught that being a nice guy gets you laid. It doesn't.)
What strikes a lot of women as strange is how rational and systematic so much of this decision-making is by men. Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren't worth the hassle. It's girls who lose out in this scenario: men don't need the sustained emotional intimacy that comes with a fulfilling sexual relationship and can retreat into masturbatory pursuits, prostitution and one-night stands much more comfortably.
But that's exactly what it is, from a male point of view: a rational opting out from education, work and marriage by men who have had enough, as a remarkable book by Dr Helen Smith called Men on Strike warned in July last year. (The consensus on this stuff is growing rapidly.)
Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.
Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.
Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.
Some might call these statistical trends "female privilege." Yet everywhere and at all times, say men's rights advocates, the "lived experiences" and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven't just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women's choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.
And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fuelling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate. And the sexodus will affect women disproportionately harshly because research data show that when women "act like men" by having lots of casual sex, they become unhappy, are more likely to suffer from depression and destroy their chances of securing a meaningful long-term relationship.
It's not just video games and casual sex that young men are retreating into. They are also immersing themselves in fetishes that to their grandparents' generation would resemble grounds for incarceration, and which drive them further away from the formerly fairer sex. Consider, for example, the example of furry culture and anthropomorphic animal sex fetishism, both of which are experiencing explosive growth, fuelled by the internet.
Jack Rivlin's student newspaper The Tab, which we encountered in part one, has noticed the trend spreading on UK campuses. (It's already rife throughout the US.) Other alternative sexual behaviours, including homosexuality and transgenderism, are more prevalent on campus now too.
"It's eminently plausible that there are a greater number of people who identify as homosexual, bisexual or other sexualities who are happy to be labelled as such these days," agrees Cambridge Union president Tim Squirrell, from whom we heard in part one, speaking about the students he sees passing through his Union. "I think we're becoming more open and accepting of people who live different kinds of lifestyles and have different kinds of identities."
Gay emancipation, of course, may not have been a uniformly good thing for women. Depending on whose figures you believe—and you're wise not to take the claims of gay advocacy groups or gay magazines too seriously, for obvious reasons—somewhere between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of the adult male population is gay. (It's probably a lot closer to 1 per cent.)
Just a few decades ago, many of those men—at the risk of stereotyping, the most sensitive, artistic, attractive and highest-earning men; that is, perfect husband material—would have got married, had a few kids and led a double life to pursue their forbidden urges. They wouldn't have bothered their wives for sex and they would have made great fathers.
But now they're settling down with men, in many cases not having children at all. In other words, a healthy chunk of the most desirable men—men who no doubt would have cooed along approvingly to feminist exhortations—are now off the market, leaving even fewer eligible men in the dating pool.
(As a side note, here's an argument you won't read elsewhere: gay men test significantly higher, on average, for IQ, and we know that IQ is at least partially genetically determined. Gays don't reproduce as much now they don't have to keep up the pretence of straight relationships. In fact, surveys say they barely reproduce at all.
Is it too much of a stretch to ask whether society's newfound tolerance of homosexuals has made society... well, a bit more stupid? Granted, it sounds far-fetched. But while there's no doubt that liberating gay men from the shame of their secret double lives has been a moral imperative, driven by compassion, no rapid social change comes without trade-offs.)
All this comes before we even discuss the rapid growth of sadomasochistic sex among the young and the "new civil rights frontier" of transgenderism, a psychiatric disorder currently in the process of being repackaged by the Left as an alternative sexual lifestyle.
The response to part one of this series was colossal. To date, over 300,000 readers have shared it on Facebook. 16,500 readers left comments. Over 500 men wrote to me privately to express their gratitude and support, from every continent and in all age groups. The younger men spoke especially movingly. (Predictably, hundreds of angry feminists on Twitter scorned it as "entitled whinging from white male manbabies," rather proving the point of the story's premise for me.) Here are the most representative quotes from my conversations, reprinted with permission.
Mark, 24: "Everyone I know feels the same. Your article spoke directly to us. We're not all losers and nerds, we're just normal guys who are either scared of being accused of terrible stuff by harpies or simply can't be bothered any more. I can't believe I'm saying this but I just can't deal with hassle of women any more."
Mickey: "I say no to the whole thing, even though I am very heterosexual and would like the intimacy of a relationship based on mutual respect. Well, I thought I did, but it’s been so long and the standard of behavior for women remains so low, along with my tolerance for dating bullshit, that it does not look like a realistic desire anymore."
Francis, 28: "I'm an athlete. My parents have a lot of money. I have plenty of friends and a good social life. I don't hang out with women any more. Occasionally I'll have one night stands, but mostly I fill my time with other things. I got accused of molesting a girl at college and since then I've just thought, whatever. I play sports instead."
Tilo, 20: "I don't know for sure but your article sounds like me and a lot of my friends. I do furry stuff online in secret. I'd be horrified if my parents found out but it's all that gets me off. Girls are a nightmare. I have a brother who's ten years older and he feels the same. We've given up."
Hector, 26: "I did stick to that social belief for a brief time thinking that the need for a serious relationship would come with the age, but it never happened and slowly I gave up. Today, a few hours before reading your article, I was having lunch with my mother and she kept talking about girlfriends and how I needed to get married, meanwhile I kept thinking 'why would I waste my life with this shit?', and it wasn't until I read your article a few hours later, that I realised. And I don't think it's just my generation that is affected by this."
We can be quite sure now that the sexodus is not some fringe, isolated internet movement as "Men Going Their Own Way" has sometimes been characterised. A combination of disastrous social engineering, special privileges for women, the relentless mockery of white men on the basis of their sex and skin colour and the economic and educational abandonment for boys has created one, if not two, lost generations already.
Men created most of what is good about the world. The excesses of masculinity are also, to be sure, responsible for much of what is bad. But if we are to avoid sliding into decline, mediocrity and a world in which men are actively discriminated against, we must arrest the decline in social attitudes towards them before so many victims are claimed that all hope of reconciliation between the sexes is lost. If that happens, it will be women who will suffer.
Some names have been changed.
52 comments:
"If an average girl works hard enough, she will be able to have a one-night stand with a 'hot' guy every now and then because he happened to be horny and wanted an easy lay. The girl then thinks that she actually can get such a man to commit to her for the long term, and so doesn't give the average guys a chance, holding out for the type of stud that she had a brief sexual encounter with in the past."
The major ironic thing about this is how the 'average girl' (who doesn't have to 'work' hard at all to get laid from the start) can now charge the hot stud with "rape" when he doesn't want to commit to her after their encounter, and she can claim the status/'feminist cred' of Holy Victimhood Martyr as a "rape" 'survivor'.
What is also ironic is how the 'average guys' that she will not later "give a chance" are actually extremely fortunate, as they will not have to deal with her mental delusions about her own 'sex appeal', her bloated ego, or her personal 'cargo*' from riding the cock carousel until her thirties.
* The typical Western feminasty trollop used to have an immense amount of "personal baggage" from her two-decades-long ride on the carousel; it became 'freight'; it is now at the level of 'cargo'.
“But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males…”
Undoubtedly, there is a trend here. BUT, the author fails to offer statistics as to its prevalence. There is a mere generalization without any hard numbers.
"Getting laid with attractive women has become extremely hard for average men.”
Because attractive women, like attractive men, have the liberty to decide what are their criteria for attractiveness. Moreover, where does it state that the average man ought to be getting laid by attractive women?
“Women today of average or even below average quality desire an elite man with above-average looks, muscles, intelligence, and confidence.”
Conversely, men today of average or even below average quality desire an elite woman with above-average looks, toned, intelligence, and confidences.
Now, define “quality” and “elite”. What do those terms actually mean?
It is hilarious that Roosh--a "vibrant" non-Christian!--would make these comments, since he is dedicated to informing men to avoid “fatties” and only “game” women who are 7’s, 8’s, 9’s, and 10’s. Why should Christian white men follow his advice and not the Lord on this matter?
“No matter what members of the 'fat acceptance' movement say, men have an innate need for fit women.”
Replace “men” with “people” and “women” with “people”.
"Good luck naming one male role model that men have today that actually helps them become men," he remarks.”
It’s called their father. I believe there are millions of them, many of whom use their own upbringing and experiences to teach their sons how to be men.
“Many young men literally perform a cost-benefit analysis and decide that women aren't worth the hassle.”
Data? Hardcore numbers?
“And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege.”
It’s called playing the victim card.
“A combination of disastrous social engineering, special privileges for women, the relentless mockery of white men on the basis of their sex and skin colour and the economic and educational abandonment for boys has created one, if not two, lost generations already.”
Again, data?
@Cheech and Chong
You make some good points, but your attempt at deflecting the core argument by asking for "data" is dumb. It's like asking for "data" proving that feminism is bad for society. Anyone willing to look at and accept reality will see that the negative effects of feminism and the sexodus are real. Trying to reduce human interaction and morality to numbers/statistics/engineering and ivory tower intellectualism is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Our society needs masculine role models, especially in the form of good fathers. The dysfunction of Millenials already shows that most modern men are too emasculated to be good fathers.
“but your attempt at deflecting the core argument by asking for "data" is dumb.”
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. Son, in an argument, one must offer evidence. Repeatedly saying the same thing in a different manner fails to meet the standard of proof required to prove one’s point.
“Trying to reduce human interaction and morality to numbers/statistics/engineering and ivory tower intellectualism is what got us into this mess in the first place.”
Tell that to Roissy!
“The dysfunction of Millenials already shows that most modern men are too emasculated to be good fathers.”
Generalizations WITHOUT substantiation is rhetoric. Engage in dialectic. What specific examples are you able to provide?
“Anyone willing to look at and accept reality will see that the negative effects of feminism and the sexodus are real.”
Feminism is NOT to blame for this loop--> Men are hardwired to desire sex. They get pissed off when women don’t “give it up”. So they learn “game”. They use that knowledge to target the amygdala of women. They con their way to sex...then complain women are sluts.
These men prey on or "captivate weak women weighed down with sins..." (2 Tim. 3:6 NASB) are ravenous wolves "not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29). Like a beast of the wild, they lack any moral compunction. They pick off the easy ones to devour them and control them. And so the church, with the help of the Shepherds, is on guard against anything that will rob people of eternal life. PUA’s in particular have lost their soul.
Sheep need shepherds. People need leaders.
As in 'leading by example'.
This penchant of the naysayers to ask for "quantitive evidence" i.e., hard numbers is to my mind the mangina's latest tactic to shut down discussion of what many of us have observed in the real world. To think that some scholar somewhere is tabulating the latest trend is nonsense. Likewise the lack of numerical data is not an indication that something is false, rather it is what many people have observed in their lives.
The feminists will site statistics that the rate of rape on college campuses is 1 in 4. We all know that this statistic is false, but to feminists it is the height of truth. So in reality, what purpose is served by citing statistics which may be questionable, if not to set yourself up for an equally questionable refutation?
Forums such as this one are intended to foster a discussion on observed trends, and not to shut them down because no unbiased and objective evidence currently exits.
I think the MGTOW (gawd, I hate these gay acronyms and buzzwords bandied about the manosphere) idea is only a short term solution. If you have been burned by a feral modern liberal woman - by all means, take some time out and recover. Get on the motorcycle, see where the road goes and get your head on straight.
But long term - we need women. Otherwise we get bitter, angry or we turn into faggots and deviants.
If we want to produce families like those of the Greatest Generation we need to follow the procedure they had for making them. Boys, the days of free love are over. It has turned our weaker women into sluts and shrews and we need to avoid them at all costs.
I recommend old world courtship. Insist on it. Get to know your girl. Don't even think of getting private or intimate with her until you've met her parents and friends. If they are chitty people chances are she is too.
Don't spend much money on this. Go walking and running together, or do chaperoned double dates where everyone pays their own way. Go to BYOB parties and BBQ's together. With all the false rape accusations flying out there, you want to be damned careful about who you get in the sack with. Carelessness with the wrong woman might result in YOU getting raped - later in court!
Old world values produced the best women ever to walk the planet right here in North America. All that is required is that you act like an old world gentleman.
Keep your chin up, take pride in yourself and assert yourself. If some hairy chested femcnut doesn't like it, invite them to sod themselves with a chainsaw and don't give them a second thought. There are lots of warm intelligent women out there and there is one out there for you!
'It is hilarious that Roosh--a "vibrant" non-Christian!--would make these comments, since he is dedicated to informing men to avoid “fatties” and only “game” women who are 7’s, 8’s, 9’s, and 10’s. Why should Christian white men follow his advice and not the Lord on this matter?'
Avoiding fatties and sluts for the most part is good advice because many don't have good hearts to begin with (plus gluttony and promiscuity are sins). His advice on what girls to avoid is pretty good on those terms.
Taking those women out of the equation the advice is mostly find the most attractive woman you can find to game for short term hookups. What is wrong with that is it makes a man focus just on looks and sex and not what the woman has to bring on the inside or what talents she possesses.
Granted not many women cultivate virtue anymore...but some do. Those are the women guys should look out for. But for the most part a man has to be virtuous first to know what he is looking for.
I guess my own response is: So what? I go my own and do my own thing. It isn't a "movement", and why does anyone else care?
Glen, men need modern women like a fish needs a bicycle. And while there are a few great women out there they are scarce as hen's teeth and the blue pill gentlemen crud is the wrong advice for 9 out of 10 .
On the bitter and angry bit I agree but angry can be a great goad for things as can bitterness. Take that energy and us it to live you life for yourself. The feminists promised men liberation too after all it we'd be cads not to take it.
Also most men who go MGTOW are not going to turn into deviants of any kind. Maybe the low IQ types with little control over the libido will but sublimation works.
Worse case scenario is some prostitution and porn as an outlet neither of which are especially harmful to men save for the intervention of state.
Now I do think the net effect of large scale MGTOW if it happened many decades would generally be dysgenic but in the even longer term high IQ's are unnecessary for human society anyway.
The real risk I think is that men become crueler to women in general and unsupportive of society.
This isn't all bad though, many people think society needs a reboot anyway and if we don't have the ability or nerve to force it, ignoring it to death is a valid way to deal with it.
Also as it strangles, MGTOW will probably go away anyway and be replaced with something else, actual male centered society where women and men actually have value to one another. Or a subset of women end up chattel
Either way this will make women quite happy.
The absolute worse case would be adapt something akin to Afghan values, women for reproduction only.
This is unlikely here but as a model, but its longer term more successful than our own. Their after infant mortality is much higher than ours and that society is growing. Ours is aging out.
As for the Greatest Generation, hell no. They are the ones who caused most of the damage we have today with their offspring, the Boomers doing the rest.
“Sheep need shepherds. People need leaders.”
Are those leaders the Roissy’s and the Roosh’s of the world, or our ministers, priests, and rabbis?
“This penchant of the naysayers to ask for "quantitive evidence" i.e., hard numbers is to my mind the mangina's latest tactic to shut down discussion of what many of us have observed in the real world.”
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. Anecdotal evidence AND facts/figures/trends are required here, especially when vague generalizations are being submitted as facts.
“Likewise the lack of numerical data is not an indication that something is false, rather it is what many people have observed in their lives.”
Personal observations may be rooted in confirmation bias, which is why numerical data HELPS to validate those points of view. Do even understand the basics of how to construct an argument?
“The feminists will site statistics that the rate of rape on college campuses is 1 in 4. We all know that this statistic is false, but to feminists it is the height of truth.”
How do you know those statistics are false? What evidence do you submit?
“So in reality, what purpose is served by citing statistics which may be questionable, if not to set yourself up for an equally questionable refutation?”
So you would rather have someone make a statement without statistics because someone may legitimately question those data points? Wow, just wow.
“Forums such as this one are intended to foster a discussion on observed trends, and not to shut them down because no unbiased and objective evidence currently exits.”
I am not shutting down anything. I am vetting the statements made by the author. Do you even know rudimentary debate procedures?
“Avoiding fatties and sluts for the most part is good advice because many don't have good hearts to begin with (plus gluttony and promiscuity are sins). His advice on what girls to avoid is pretty good on those terms.”
Where does God make the claim that “fatties” ought to be avoided?
Regarding “sluts”…Roosh and company do NOT avoid them, they covet them!
“Granted not many women cultivate virtue anymore…”
And neither do those “men” whose objective is to “pump and dump”, which is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
"And while there are a few great women out there they are scarce as hen's teeth."
Define "great women".
"Also most men who go MGTOW are not going to turn into deviants of any kind."
What is your basis for making this statement?
"...but in the even longer term high IQ's are unnecessary for human society anyway."
The builders of civilization would vehemently disagree with your rudimentary assessment.
"This isn't all bad though, many people think society needs a reboot anyway and if we don't have the ability or nerve to force it, ignoring it to death is a valid way to deal with it."
Never go full aspie.
Well AB, I did not say men NEED modern women. I guess if I said it a different way - men need 'old world women'. The women up here in Alberta held down ranches and homesteads in the 1940's and raised families while their men went to war for years at a time. Those were 'great women'. They were warm, intelligent, loving and faithful. And - they are still around today. There's a lot of shitty modern men around today - the manosphere is crawling with them what with the Vox Day's and their greek letters.
The Greatest Generation is what it is even if you can't read a history book. If you want to single out a generation for bad parenting even the Boomers lose out to Gen X. Our millenials are truly horrible children that make Beavis and Butt Head look like saints. The boys are irredeemable gelded lambs, the girls are shrieking whores - and they have yet to raise children of their own. The next 20 years are going to be a fuggin train wreck.
Independence, savings and preparation will be the key to surviving them - and a good woman increases your odds of happiness astronomically.
Glen. How many Old World Women are out there?
I actually don't think enough are there to make it worth the effort, I'd like to be wrong, but the pioneer women the US version of the women you mentioned are long gone
As for Vox, dude is a husband and father and seems to know where his towel is at. I like him
What your beef with him?
@Glen Filthie - I am seeing the current crop of 15-20yo shrieking whores, alcoholics, and druggies crapping their children out now. It is disturbing already and these kids haven't yet reached 5 years of age.
I think that someone mentioned MGTOW dying out (I hate the constant acronyms myself). Yes, especially the older ones (aka bachelors). Like Feminism, it is not a movement that will last.
Ironically, I think that the world has already pretty-much said to the higher-IQ types: "We don't want you." It's impossible to stop it from burning down.
2 points:
-I'm from the tail end of generation x, but lately I've been working a lot with 20 somethings. They're mostly the kids of boomers by the way, as genx is a small generation that doesn't even start until '65. Compared to my generation, the millennials are nice kids. They seem overwhelmed to me on the whole, and I mostly just feel sorry for them. The worst generation in American history is and always will be the boomers. Every negative social trend effectively started with them and will continue on to its disastrous, irreversible conclusion even after the last of the them has taken their dirt nap. Let me give just one example. There's no legal act you can do more destructive to a child and their long term welfare than divorcing your spouse, yet boomers divorce rates are higher than that of any other generation before or since. How can children grow up to be men or women with no father in their life? It's impossible. It's a complete joke. In the same way that people debate what caused the fall of Rome, I predict that future studies into American history will primarily focus on what social or ecological factors produced a generation of eternal, selfish infants. The boomers are the generation that turned gold into offal. I could go on, but Stefan Molyneux has already had the definitive word on the subject here:
Laziness, Greed, Entitlement - Baby Boomers Defined
-How many Old World Women are out there? Lots in Old World places. I've met them. If they stand next to an average American woman they make her look like a pudgy boy. Sure, marriage with the right girl is great, but I've seen way too many men have their lives completely crushed by divorce. These guys have had their children, money and homes taken away from them and the bitterness and anger in them is never far from the surface. They are shells of who they used to be. The MGTOW lifestyle as described in these articles would sound like some sort of paradise to these men.
"As for Vox, dude is a husband and father and seems to know where his towel is at."
He claims to be a Christian, yet is willing to offer a free pass to Roissy and company for their observably anti-Christian approach to "game".
"but the pioneer women the US version of the women you mentioned are long gone..."
They are decidedly present. One can find them if one looks. Are YOU willing to overlook that some may be a bit on the "heavy" side?
@earl
Gluttonous women cultivating virtue? Hmm, something is not right with that sentence...
Besides it not being a sentence in the first place, heh.
@C&C found God
Hmm, what you are selling... Are you not one of female heavier variety? Failing that, perhaps you have such a relative that you want to fob off on someone?
"Conversely, men today of average or even below average quality desire an elite woman with above-average looks, toned, intelligence, and confidences."
Here is an example where attractive traits are not exactly the same, as someone who is generally not attracted to women would like to paint.
Confidences? Of what? In her professional success? Or perhaps managerial skills? Or 'being comfortable with her sexuality' (for bonus points, exchange 'comfortable' with 'generous')? Do those matter (as positives) to heterosexual men?
This comment is tactful and informative. I'd rather not sugarcoat it in such a manner, but well... the message is still the same.
CCFG
A few pounds doesn't matter much if the rest is good.
However most "heavy" women are actually fat and many are gross. Worse on the heavy side usually means a lack of self control and emotional problems in a women.
All that said I'm not interested in marriage at this time or especially in American women. If I needed sex and I don't, I live r close enough to legal prostitution to scratch that itch or there is always the internet
Cheech, seriously, why marry a woman you don't want to have sex with? If it's for religious reasons, why not just become a monk? St.Paul himself said he would prefer that all men lived like he did and seemed to view marriage as a necessary evil. If you're not religious, there's no good reason to get married any more at all whether the girl is attractive or not.The whole thing is a double edged sword to begin with under the best of circumstances, and the consequences for failure have never been more dire than they are now for men. If the girl is not >90% of what you want in every aspect then you're just playing poker with your life.
I guess that gluttony and sloth are still regarded as cardinal vices by religious people. So claiming virtue and demonstrating the consequences of two deadly sins at once shouldn't get a pass.
The irony is that Cheech keeps demanding quantitative evidence while making generalizations himself. Hypocritical much? Quantitative studies on social trends tend to distort reality more than anything, especially since the "scientists" behind such studies tend to be immoral. The bogus nature of feminist studies, which are rarely vetted due to political correctness, shows this in action. Looking at reality honestly and making observations is far more accurate than trusting the hollow conclusions of some ivory-tower social scientist. If Cheech wants to believe that college men are all potential rapists based on nonsensical feminist studies, then go ahead. Anyone with a brain can see that this assertion is foolish, and false rape scandals like UVA rape-gate show the foolishness in action.
Cheech seems to want to reconcile Christianity with feminism, but it can't be done. Christianity and feminism are not compatible, and modernized Christians need to get over their folly.
For the record, I am not a PUA. I think PUA is an immoral response to the evils of feminism and modernism. Denying the harm that feminism does will only make the situation worse. Reminds me of the Chesterton quote:
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
Also, studies are worthless without thorough and ethical peer-review and meta-analysis, which are becoming increasingly rare in general due to political correctness. Most modern scientists and statisticians are just leeches who like to pretend that they know more than the rest of us. This is how you get insane conclusions such as two gay parents being equivalent to a father and mother, which is clearly false yet considered true by the politically correct orthodoxy.
“Hmm, what you are selling... Are you not one of female heavier variety? Failing that, perhaps you have such a relative that you want to fob off on someone?”
I’m trying to pawn off my sister, a Christian woman, 28 years old, 20 pounds overweight, with an old school soul. Perhaps you can stop chasing sluts and settle down with a real woman. You ought to follow your own advice and “lead by example”. Rhetoric is not your strong suit; however, I can only imagine how poor is your dialectic.
“successfully chaste members of the opposite sex will tend to be less attractive than average.”
What is the factual basis for this statement? What evidence can be offered?
“Worse on the heavy side usually means a lack of self control and emotional problems in a women.”
If you are going to make this statements, then you best offer insight.
“If I needed sex and I don't, I live r close enough to legal prostitution to scratch that itch or there is always the internet “
Thank you for contributing to the decline of Western Civilization. You are no different than the SJW’s.
“there's no good reason to get married any more at all whether the girl is attractive or not.”
The BEST reason? Children.
“Quantitative studies on social trends tend to distort reality more than anything, especially since the "scientists" behind such studies tend to be immoral.”
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. This conversation here requires proof, not conjecture. You are automatically assuming that these “studies” are inherently flawed, whereas the results of the study can be vetted. Dismissing them entirely, while relying on mere observations (which can be easily swayed by confirmation bias) only demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part how some positions are more credible than other positions.
“Looking at reality honestly and making observations is far more accurate than trusting the hollow conclusions of some ivory-tower social scientist.”
You do realize that Roissy, for example, cites social science studies to bolster his claims.
“Cheech seems to want to reconcile Christianity with feminism, but it can't be done.”
That, my friend, would be a strawman.
“If Cheech wants to believe that college men are all potential rapists based on nonsensical feminist studies, then go ahead.”
Another strawman. I think one of the three pigs will be asking you some questions.
“I think PUA is an immoral response to the evils of feminism and modernism.”
GREAT! Now we are getting somewhere.
“Also, studies are worthless without thorough and ethical peer-review and meta-analysis, which are becoming increasingly rare in general due to political correctness.”
Care to elaborate? You know, offer a source to validate your claim?
Okay, so I wrote:
“ If you're not religious, there's no good reason to get married any more at all whether the girl is attractive or not.”
You wrote:
" The BEST reason? Children."
But you don't need marriage to have children. Bastards are the norm in Scandinavia for instance, and I was specifically referring to non religious people with that statement above. For a man who is not religious, why should he take on the responsibilities of marriage when he can have all of its benefits either way?
To go back to the main issue, even if you are religious, you still have to question whether having kids is worth putting every other element of your life and any possibility of future happiness at risk by getting married. I'm not exaggerating when I say that's the environment and risks that men in America are facing when they choose marriage. They should know before they agree to it that they are playing a sucker's game, and the girl they're literally risking their lives on had better be worth it. Under these circumstances, it shouldn't be surprising if a marriage to a woman they aren't attracted to for the end of having children doesn't cut it. As I mentioned above, St. Paul for one saw no particular religious imperative to whelp a litter of brats, anyway.
Even with the kids themselves, you're still dealing with a double edged sword. You know that your life as you knew it is going to be over when you have kids even under the best of circumstances. But what if the kids have some health problem or mental issues on top that? I watched a documentary on Bing Crosby a while back. He had two wives and two completely different families during different periods of his life. The set of kids from the first wife were disasters who made his life miserable. They all died of suicide or drugs. The second set of kids grew up to be competent, well adjusted human beings. You can't just pretend that kids make it all worth while, because even there you're playing dice and just hoping the chromosomes don't fall in a way that produces monsters.
For all of that, I don't disagree that marriage (under reasonable social and legal circumstances)is the best way to raise children or the best arrangement for most men and women. But so what, if our current social and legal environment doesn't meet even the baseline of sanity much less reason? It's like saying that driving a Ferrari on the Autobahn is the best way to drive a car. Fair enough, but if most men don't have access to those things, it just doesn't really matter. Also, 20 lbs is not a big deal, unless the distribution of it is really wrong. Most women I see around here probably wish they were only 20lbs overweight.
"I’m trying to pawn off my sister, a Christian woman, 28 years old, 20 pounds overweight, with an old school soul. Perhaps you can stop chasing sluts and settle down with a real woman. You ought to follow your own advice and “lead by example”. Rhetoric is not your strong suit; however, I can only imagine how poor is your dialectic."
If you're any indication, then your sister is probably more of a modernized/feminist Christian. Arguing for feminist-style fat-overweight acceptance demonstrates this. Contrary to what science quacks say today, being overweight or fat is not a disease. Fat-overweight acceptance is gluttony-acceptace and sloth-acceptance. If your sister wants to marry an old-school gentleman, then it helps to look like an old school lady.
"Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. This conversation here requires proof, not conjecture. You are automatically assuming that these “studies” are inherently flawed, whereas the results of the study can be vetted. Dismissing them entirely, while relying on mere observations (which can be easily swayed by confirmation bias) only demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part how some positions are more credible than other positions."
Statistical studies are rarely proof of anything. Also, quantitative social science studies are basically observational as well. Scientists and statisticians are human too and are no less vulnerable to confirmation bias. Furthermore, they tend to abuse their authority as most authority figures do, especially since fudging data while sitting on your ivory tower is easy to do. The China Study, which was refuted by Denise Minger who has no official science credentials, is a great example of how studies are often affected by confirmation bias. And this is in health science which is supposed to be a "harder" science than social science. An article like this one that clearly resonates with people is better evidence on social trends than most statisticians can provide.
You haven't offered any arguments falsifying the conclusions drawn here. Asking for quantitative studies while coming up with random generalizations of your own just makes you look foolish.
"That, my friend, would be a strawman."
They aren't strawmen because the whole point of articles like these is to challenge the feminist orthodoxy. I highly disapprove of PUAs and their quantization of humanity, but at least guys like Roissy and Roosh actually criticize modern feminism. That's better than modern Christians who simply accept the feminist status quo while blaming men for everything.
"Care to elaborate? You know, offer a source to validate your claim?"
You think that the scientific establishment is going to openly show its own lack of rigor? But a good example is the highly dubious nature of studies which are pro-LGBT lifestyle. These studies are never properly reviewed despite the fact that their conclusions go against basic common sense.
Modern Christians need to understand that criticizing PUA is only criticizing a symptom. The root cause and mistake is feminism. Correcting the mistake of feminism will fix its offshoot aberrations such as PUA.
Even if not regarded a disease (metabolic =/= infectious, mind) it's still as life-shortening and 'quality-of-life-worsening' as a disease.
Some people are more genetically predisposed to becoming fat than others. Still, would you wish your own kids that 'gift', regardless of its nature(a defect of metabolism, problems with self-control, or eating habits picked up when growing up, or any combination of these)?
True metabolic disorders are rare. Someone with such a disorder would die without medication. There is slight genetic variation in metabolism, but that doesn't affect fat gain significantly. The vast majority of people can maintain good body composition through controlled eating, intermittent fasting and exercise. Conservation of mass/energy means that fat has to come from somewhere.
Rare? Depends on the distance from physiologically optimal ranges. Major disorders are rare, but slight deviations from the norm are 'the norm' themselves. :) There are no clear-cut boundaries.
Could you guess the distribution curves? :)
A runny nose is also the result of a disease, if most often far less dangerous than internal hemorrhaging caused by Ebola. Similar to metabolic diseases/disorders/defects.
Mild metabolic disorders don't exist in the same way that mild cancer doesn't exist. Metabolic disorders are very serious. Not only that, it's possible to throw your metabolism out of whack by eating too much junk food and being sedentary.
There are slight variations in normal metabolism, most notably that men tend to have higher metabolism than women, but none of that excuses having too much fat.
Cheech, I find it funny that you try and hide behind the facade of quantitative rationalism. In that case, why bash PUAs and their stats. Clearly Roissy's pro-PUA stances must be right since he has the stats (sarcasm here).
You just seem to be trying to shame guys because they won't marry your sister.
“But you don't need marriage to have children.”
You undercut your own argument regarding the “scourge of feminism”—single mothers lack the wherewithal to consistently raise well-adjusted kids. Do not a mother and father who live together in holy matrimony offer the BEST opportunity to ensure their offspring are properly cared for? Or you one of those cads that heavily contribute to the decline of Western Civilization by submitting to the advice by Return Of Kings?
“For a man who is not religious, why should he take on the responsibilities of marriage when he can have all of its benefits either way?”
To be a patriarchal figure in matrimony, which is the appropriate response to the “scourge of feminism”.
“You still have to question whether having kids is worth putting every other element of your life and any possibility of future happiness at risk by getting married.”
“They should know before they agree to it that they are playing a sucker's game, and the girl they're literally risking their lives on had better be worth it.”
Not every man who enters a relationship feels that they are or will be taken to the cleaner’s should the marriage go south. They are privy to its pitfalls, but “alpha men” take precautions—or so I have been told. Burned before?
“You can't just pretend that kids make it all worth while, because even there you're playing dice and just hoping the chromosomes don't fall in a way that produces monsters.”
[Shakes head] if you do not have children, then you are absolutely missing out. Although, I suppose you do have a point given your own creation.
“If you're any indication, then your sister is probably more of a modernized/feminist Christian.”
[Laughs] Wow, just wow.
“Arguing for feminist-style fat-overweight acceptance demonstrates this…”
I am not arguing for “fat acceptance”. I am merely pointing out what the Bible says on this matter. Do you adhere to the principles of the Good Book as a Christian?
Samuel 16:7—But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
God focuses on what people look like on the inside. While there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to look good, there must be balance. God would rather see us work on our character rather than our biceps. He prefers the kind of man or woman who talks to Him on a regular basis through their Bible, not Cosmopolitan or GQ.
So, the issue is NOT personal preference. The issue is a statement made that is decidedly anti-Christian—stay away from or ignore women who are fat.
Would God Himself make that statement?
“Modern Christians need to understand that criticizing PUA is only criticizing a symptom. The root cause and mistake is feminism…”
The root cause and mistake is the secular manosphere AND feminism.
“Statistical studies are rarely proof of anything. Also, quantitative social science studies are basically observational as well.”
[Laughs] You do realize when this statement is made—“Worse on the heavy side usually means a lack of self control and emotional problems in a women”— a generalization has been made. Declaring it factual does NOT make it factual. So, one must offer evidence in support of that generalization when challenged. Your response? You dismiss entirely the process required, while maintaining that statement is true! Your position may be valid, but HOW valid? Your position seems reasonable, but HOW reasonable? You see, you are employing the anecdotal fallacy—using a personal experience or an isolated examples instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
“Scientists and statisticians are human too and are no less vulnerable to confirmation bias.”
Indeed. No argument here.
“Furthermore, they tend to abuse their authority as most authority figures do, especially since fudging data while sitting on your ivory tower is easy to do.”
Now here is where you go off the rails. Offering an opinion as evidence is NOT evidence. It would appear that you discount scientists, their methods, and their conclusions in general, rather than on a case by case basis, which using YOUR own logic, is a great example of people are affected by confirmation bias.
“You haven't offered any arguments falsifying the conclusions drawn here.”
Absolutely, because you are engaging in rhetoric, not dialectic. Do you need a primer on these terms?
“Asking for quantitative studies while coming up with random generalizations of your own just makes you look foolish.”
I made a statement of contention, not a generalization. It is incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence to support it in response.
“But a good example is the highly dubious nature of studies which are pro-LGBT lifestyle. These studies are never properly reviewed despite the fact that their conclusions go against basic common sense.”
Divine fallacy, appeal to common sense. Again, if you are going to make these statements and declare them as factual, without offering any analysis, you are merely engaging in rhetoric. You could be right. How are they dubious? Never properly reviewed? What are your sources in this instance?
“An article like this one that clearly resonates with people is better evidence on social trends than most statisticians can provide.”
Anecdotal evidence in support of a generalization is dubious. It is nothing more than a short narrative that is prone to be derived from a person’s preconceived notions and prejudices. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires STATISTICAL evidence. This fact should have been learned in Debate 101. I am more than willing to take your position as being rooted in fact…with the appropriate support.
“I highly disapprove of PUAs and their quantization of humanity, but at least guys like Roissy and Roosh actually criticize modern feminism. That's better than modern Christians who simply accept the feminist status quo while blaming men for everything.”
Criticize, but not observably take measures to curtail its influence. They would rather “make hay” with fundamental Christians in this regard, while receiving a free pass for their decidedly anti-godly masculinity message. As if your “highly disapprove” means anything to them.
“That's better than modern Christians who simply accept the feminist status quo while blaming men for everything.”
You are being purposely vague here. What are “modern Christians”?
“The China Study, which was refuted by Denise Minger who has no official science credentials…”
It was challenged, not refuted. There is a distinct difference. Interesting to note that she purged comments on her blog from scientific researchers who pointed out the flaws in her reasoning and in her understanding of accepted research methods. For example, Minger is demanding of the quality of evidence for federal dietary guidelines she disagrees with, while having far looser criteria for evidence supporting her favored hypotheses suggests the likelihood of denialism. Would you not agree, based on YOUR logic, that her behavior, as an authority figure (a blogger and author) is abusive, as most authority figures do?
“Cheech, I find it funny that you try and hide behind the facade of quantitative rationalism.”
And I find it hilarious that you lack substantial flair in the art of discourse.
“Clearly Roissy's pro-PUA stances must be right since he has the stats…”
Indeed, he offers statistics to back up claims, information that can be properly vetted. See, he understands the principles of debate. Whether they are “right” requires more in-depth analysis. You, on the other hand, simply pass off generalities as truth.
“You just seem to be trying to shame guys because they won't marry your sister.”
[Laughs] No, I am embarrassed at your intellectual sterility.
"If your sister wants to marry an old-school gentleman, then it helps to look like an old school lady.”
Representative of “old school ladies”. Frontier women, please to meet you.
maggiemayfashions.com/sewingblog/category/resources/
"You undercut your own argument regarding the “scourge of feminism”—single mothers lack the wherewithal to consistently raise well-adjusted kids. "
I was stating a fact, not making an argument. There are Scandinavian nations where illegitimacy is greater than 50%. Society there continues on whether I think it's the best way to do things or not. And I never used the term "scourge of feminism" so why is it in quotes?
"Or you one of those cads that heavily contribute to the decline of Western Civilization by submitting to the advice by Return Of Kings?"
Straw Man.
"To be a patriarchal figure in matrimony, which is the appropriate response to the “scourge of feminism”."
Which means nothing to the non-religious man in my question who grew up in a society that vilifies patriarchy. You live in a larger culture and under a legal system that largely disregards any Christian tradition or influence. Are you capable of taking into consideration the motivations and concerns of people who aren't in lockstep with the dogma of you religious denomination? You seem to have no answers beyond or in any greater depth than "because God!" to any question. And again, I never wrote anything about the "scourge of feminism."
"Not every man who enters a relationship feels that they are or will be taken to the cleaner’s should the marriage go south. They are privy to its pitfalls, but “alpha men” take precautions—or so I have been told. Burned before?"
Feeble. This is weak tea, and I think even you must realize this. What man does expect that his marriage will go south or that he end up being taken to the cleaners? Yet the divorce rate is consistently estimated at 50% while the percentage of people getting married continues to drop. I've never been married (you should lay off the straw men and baseless assumptions)but I've seen the aftermath and the wrecked lives of dozens of male family members, friends and co-workers who've had their families destroyed or have even been sent to prison because they could not meet their child support obligations.
The story of this man entitled Life Not Worth Living is very representative of what they tell me about their lives. If you're implying that these men were somehow at fault for not being "alphas", that is simply contemptible.
"[Shakes head] if you do not have children, then you are absolutely missing out. "
Yeah, kids are great. Are they worth risking your home, money, any possibility of future happiness and a prison sentence if you can't pay your child support? Maybe not for everyone. You seem incapable of considering that realities of other people's lives might be different than yours.
"Although, I suppose you do have a point given your own creation."
Ad Hominem. Is that how your parents raised you? I haven't insulted you or given you any reason to insult me, yet this is how you react when someone disagrees with your precious opinions. If you're going to lose an argument (and you're losing this argument badly) you could at least show a little ladylike decorum, miss.
"Mild metabolic disorders don't exist in the same way that mild cancer doesn't exist."
Oh yeah? Seriously? What about benign tumors? Is there a sharp divide between malignant tumors (cancers) and benign tumors? Ask an oncologist, then.
"Whether they are “right” requires more in-depth analysis. You, on the other hand, simply pass off generalities as truth. "
And have you found any stats showing that Roissy is wrong? Because by your own standards you should have no reason to oppose what he says about living a PUA lifestyle.
Statistical studies don't exist in some higher plain of truth. Statistics is just a tool that has very limited use in general and almost no use when it comes to evaluating the human condition. Data points are easier to distort than observations rooted in reality. As it stands you don't have any qualitative or quantitative evidence for your generalizations or points of contention. Simply disagreeing is a point itself, so you should provide stats by your own standards.
Do you believe any study that comes out is true because that is not rational thinking. The conclusions of a study are only valid after the study passes vetting procedures and not before. In the case of social science studies that go against morality or common sense shouldn't even be taken seriously. As a religious person I think you would understand this.
On fat acceptance, the fact is that overweight/obese people have issues with gluttony and sloth in the same way that people who sleep around have issues with lust. Your appearance often does say something about personal character.
Cheech, making points of contention and demanding stats isn't an argument at all. All you've done is disagree with this article without giving any valid counter-points.
And I agree that anecdotes and reality-based observations can be distorted as well, but distorting scientific/statistical studies is easier due to their controlled nature. Scientists often tend to forget that science is just a tool. This is why studies are often wrong in ways that are devastating (as demonstrated with conventional health advice) and contradict each other. Denise Minger may not have been right in all her assertions, but she did shown that vegan health science, really all extreme diet science, is nonsensical.
Though I won't deny that Minger can also be abusive as many with a statistical eye tend to be.
“I was stating a fact, not making an argument. There are Scandinavian nations where illegitimacy is greater than 50%.”
Yes, you provided a fact that I did not dispute. However, when you claim that why should men, especially those who are not religions, become involved in marriage and have children, I offered a cogent rebuttal—the restoration of patriarchy and stabilizing the family.
“And I never used the term "scourge of feminism" so why is it in quotes?”
Because several posters here, including yourself, have discussed the devastating impact of feminism.
“Or you one of those cads that heavily contribute to the decline of Western Civilization by submitting to the advice by Return Of Kings?
Straw Man.”
I was asking a question! I did not directly call you a “cad”.
Sensitive, are we?
“Which means nothing to the non-religious man in my question who grew up in a society that vilifies patriarchy.”
Patriarchy may be under attack, but men remain in firm control of institutions and industry in America. The recorded ratio between men and women still decidedly favors men when it comes to highly recognized ranks and occupations. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, has declared that a wife should “graciously submit” to her husband’s leadership. In 2010, 35 percent of participants were asked by General Social Survey whether they agreed that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
“I've never been married (you should lay off the straw men and baseless assumptions)”.
Do you even know what is a straw man?
“but I've seen the aftermath and the wrecked lives of dozens of male family members, friends and co-workers who've had their families destroyed or have even been sent to prison because they could not meet their child support obligations.”
And I have seen hundreds of men who are happily married to conservative or moderate minded women, who have raised well-adjusted children. I have also seen dozens of men and women who divorced, but are amicable in their relationship.
You do realize that child support laws were generally created and supported by men.
“If you're implying that these men were somehow at fault for not being "alphas", that is simply contemptible.”
I have been informed that men with strong character and backbone develop and maintain a patriarchal system. They also take charge during courtship and in marriage. Women desire men who exude confidence, who make decisions, who put their foot down. They may kick and scream in the process, but in the end, a powerful man leads, not follows, in the relationship.
Would you agree?
“The story of this man entitled Life Not Worth Living is very representative of what they tell me about their lives.”
It’s called playing the victim card.
“Are they worth risking your home, money, any possibility of future happiness and a prison sentence if you can't pay your child support?”
You are being overly dramatic. But, you are right, marriage is not for some men.
“I haven't insulted you or given you any reason to insult me, yet this is how you react when someone disagrees with your precious opinions.”
It’s called verbal sparring.
C&C just reinforces the fact that women ruin everything, including comment threads.
Way to go, arsehole.
Post a Comment