Housework, Independence, and Entitlement

The issue of men and housework seems to have sparked renewed interest among the chattering classes. It seems to have been sparked by this Tide commercial of some vaguely metrosexual father washing his daughter’s princess dress.

Judgy Bitch had some fun with this and CR points out the biological origins of the issue, but I’m going to weigh in as well.

Now, honestly, I don’t care if men do housework. Doing the laundry, cooking, or cleaning because you want to makes you neither more nor less of a man. If stuff needs to get done, men get stuff done.

A family should pursue whatever division of labour works best for them.

On the other hand, being a kitchen bitch is emasculating and will ruin your marriage. If you are a man, avoid it, it won’t go well for you.

Of course, all this assumes that there’s actually a chore gap. Which is unlikely as the time-use studies on this tend to ignore traditionally male chores.

I’m not going to write about proper housework division, that’s a personal issue. Instead, I am going to write about how this debate relates to independence, entitlement, and the society.

****

First, independence and strength.

Feminists, you wanted careers, you wanted to work outside the house, you got your wish, please shut up.

What these women don’t see when they complain about the “patriarchy” and being “oppressed” by staying at home rather than work mindless corporate drudgery, is that they now are doing what men have always done.

In the industrial era, men have always gone to work, they have always come home to do house work (home repairs, renovations, garbage, car repairs, yard work, finances, BBQing, etc.), and they have always participated in family life (to a greater or lesser degree).

The thing is, they didn’t, and still don’t, bitch about it. They didn’t write articles about how “over-whelming” it was. They didn’t demand that women step up and do they’re jobs for them. They didn’t whine about how unfair life was.

They just did their jobs, because that’s what independent adults do.

Independent and strong people don’t whine about how tough life is, about how unfair it is, they just do what needs to be done.

Women, you are now in the position those “oppressive” men have always been in.

Working all day for somebody else then coming home to take care of the house and family is what men have always done. You wanted to do it, now you are doing it.

You can not complain about women being “oppressed” when you do not have men’s responsibilities, then whine about having men’s responsibilities when you have spent decades demanding them.

From the Atlantic article:

The good news is that many men already seek out these responsibilities. I like to call their actions “small instances of gender heroism” or “SIGH”s, in honor of the intense pang of gratitude and relief a damsel-in-distress feels when a superhero notices her especially—amidst a crowd—and swoops in to enact a rescue that was so unexpected that its impossibility had become the central pillar of her fierce independence. You know, like the dreamy effect Mr. Darcy has on Elizabeth Bennet, Superman on Lois Lane, and Antonia on her line through Danielle and Therèse.
…
Find a working mom and lead with the following SIGH: “What do you need, in order to raise your children and advance in your career at the same time?” Just swoop in and help her out, not because you’re obligated to rectify an injustice, but because you can. Responding to the misery of the people you care about is what you do.

Independent and strong people don’t need SIGHs.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

If you need someone else to help you, you are, by definition, not independent. You are, by definition, weak.

If you want to be independent, be independent, but then don’t beg others to pick up your shit for you, do it yourself.

Don’t demand men clean your houses, don’t demand men come to your rescue, don’t demand others do things for you. You are independent now, deal with it.

****

Second, entitlement.

If you read these articles, you get a strong sense of entitlement.

The SIGHs talk above and the rest of the Atlantic article reek of entitlement, but as usual Jezebel just does horrible, entitled bitch so much better than anyone else.

The title of the Jezebel article (no link, if you’re curious see JB’s article) displays this perfectly:

“How to Make a Dude Sweep the Kitchen Floor (Correctly), Without You Even Having to Tell Him“

What kind of world-class bitch writes this? It sounds like a manual on training dogs to urinate outside.

In this mentality men exist to do what women desire, in the way women desire, while telepathically understanding both.

A few gems of overactive entitlement:

It’s not just that you’re tired and pissed, it’s that you never get the feeling of having your own life, or free time, or time to recharge, if you feel like you are the only person overseeing the household’s concerns and making sure they are handled, or worse, if you are re-doing the work your husband or partner did poorly.

Because the entirety of everything revolves around the women’s feelings. As well, men are incompetent and everything must be done to the women’s standards or its worse than not having done anything at all.*

The Atlantic has some fancy sociological theories for this well-documented disparity as to why humans with peens can’t scrub a bathroom right without a lot of rigmarole:

Remember, all the jobs have to be done to the women’s standards, because men are incompetent and their standards don’t matter.

They Can’t Be Bothered (Motivational Hypothesis)

Of course they can see what needs to be done, but in their eyes, it’s just not that important to do it, especially when other stuff matters more. Homemade valentines for your class party, kiddo? Why bother when we can just buy some and save time?

No matter how useless the man may think the project is, if the women desires it must be done and he’s a jerk for not counting it as important housework and sharing the duties.

Later, Travis wonders why Alice can’t just constantly leave him notes to tell him what he has to do? Sure thing mister, right after she cuts the crust off your PB&J.

Because men should know what women want. We’re all mind-readers.

Here’s an idea for the women complaining: go fuck yourself.

If you want to be a controlling bitch and demand things be cleaner, do it yourself. If you want the house cleaned to your spoiled, exacting standards, do it yourself. If men’s standards are not up to those that your entitlement complex demands, do it yourself. If a man doesn’t think your little social-climbing and status games are important enough to act on, do it yourself.

Essentially, quit trying to force your neuroses and perfectionism concerning cleanliness and social status-seeking on men.

Do it yourself, and stop bitching that men don’t care about your neurotic desires.

****

Third, society.

From the Atlantic:

Only a handful of working parents have the “village” they need to care for their children during the period in which career opportunities slam up against pregnancies, births, years of nursing, and other crucial forms of caregiving. Most of us have to buy the village, and it’s expensive—so expensive that almost everyone has to stop hiring once they have paid for childcare and, in the very best cases, a cleaning service, despite the fact that there is much more to do.

To completely eliminate the destruction that childrearing exacts on your mind, body, and career, you would have to hire workers to handle your finances, home repairs, pets, laundry, afterschool commitments, errands, and shopping, among other responsibilities. Add to these costs the overtime that most working parents pay to accommodate the fact that their childcare needs extend well beyond the presumed eight hours a day, and you’re talking about a lot of cash. No one has this kind of money.

Because no one can afford to fully replace themselves at home while they are at the office and because, when it comes to more important tasks like selecting afterschool lessons and resolving playground disputes, no one wants to replace themselves, working mothers have famously picked up the slack for both partners, subsidizing our market with their free labor, enabling our companies and institutions to charge artificially low prices for their goods and offer artificially high salaries to their employees.

All of this means that mothers are important, in all of the ways in which socially conservative forces routinely note. But it could also mean that mothers—especially working mothers—are exploited. They are being used as a means by their partners, our institutions, and our economy in a system they did not design, to do more than their fair share of the family’s work, all without compensation. No one yet has asked or empowered working mothers to reimagine and restructure their workplaces to suit their own ends. So the basic lack of self-governance and self-determination, combined with the unpaid labor, raises the specter of injustice.

I’ve written about all this before, but it bears repeating. Nobody is meant to work, take care of family, keep home, raise children, and all those other responsibilities at once. Of course child care is expensive. This is why we once had a division of labour in the family. It made it so people could manage all these things.

An you know what? It worked, at least until whining feminists destroyed it.

Now that they’ve destroyed the family division of labour which “oppressed” them, they are now whining that there is no division of labour and they actually have to take on multiple roles.

Well, boo-dee-fucking-hoo.

Feminists, you got what you wanted. Why are you so unhappy?

Please stop complaining about the changes you wrought on society.

Enjoy what you created.

****

Anyway, to sum, the whole housework debate, assuming that it is not a myth created by statistical manipulation, is simply women acting entitled.

Women wanted the “prestige” of the careers of men, so they “liberated” themselves and started to work outside the home.

Now that they are working outside the home, they are realizing it’s a lot of work, but instead of simply sucking it up and being strong and independent like men always have, they are bitching about how hard it is to work both outside and inside the home.

Instead of engaging in self-reflection on their own choices, they are choosing to blame men.

In addition, they are choosing to force their neurotic standards of housework on men and whining that men don’t comply with their controlling attitudes.

The whole housework debate is a ginned-up non-issue created by controlling, neurotic feminists who want to blame the hardship created by their own personal choices on men.

****

* As an aside, the sentence “or worse, if you are re-doing the work your husband or partner did poorly.” sort of validates some aspects game theory. It is better to forgo helping women at all then to be a beta about it. They may dislike you doing nothing, but they will hate obsequiousness that isn’t perfect obedience even more.

Feminist Self-Annihilation

It seems it’s now a thing that women feel guilty about desiring a long-term relationship. As per that liberal rag, the Atlantic:

As a sociologist who’s interviewed several 20-something women on their sexual development, I’ve found straight young women aren’t necessarily embracing hooking up because they’re masters of their own destiny, as suggested by Hanna Rosin here a The Atlantic but because they face a new taboo and it’s not about sex or money or power. Instead, it’s a taboo about that traditional province of women: relationships. Ambitious young women in their 20s feel they shouldn’t want relationships with men at this phase in their lives.

I can’t believe this is a thing. I knew some feminists wanted the right to be sluts without shame, but what the hell?

What could possibly possess a person to feel guilty about desiring a human relationship?

But what really got me about this piece was this:

Some young women deeply desire meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about those desires. Many express the same sentiment again and again: “Why do I, a young and highly educated woman in the 21st century, value relationships with men so highly?” To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of their education, and of their achievements.

Really? I can’t even really feel anger over this, just sadness.

Women value relationships with men because humans were created (or evolved) to live with each other, to love each other, and to form relationships. We are social creatures; relationships define who we are.

To not value human relationships is to engage in self-annihilation.* The desire for companionship is the most human part of you, to fight against it is to destroy yourself and your humanity.

Meet a girl named Katie:

Katie, a 25-year-old woman I spoke with as part of my research, confided that she worried her single-minded pursuit of a graduate degree might limit her ability to meet a man with whom she could build a life. This realization—that she might want to prioritize a relationship over a career—felt shocking to Katie, and she did not admit to it easily. She felt deeply ashamed by such thoughts, worried that they signaled weakness and dependence, qualities she did not admire. To put such a high premium on relationships was frightening to Katie. She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.

Read that again: “She worried that it meant she wasn’t liberated and was still defined by traditional expectations of women.”

This women is destroying herself, destroying the things that are real in her life (relationships, family, and her desires for such) over ideological cant.

Dear Katie, if you are not pursuing what you truly desire because you are worried about signalling weakness and dependence, then you aren’t liberated and you are weak. If you are denying your human desire for companionship to “signal” independence, you are a slave, not of the body, but much worse, of the mind.

You are still letting others define you, you have just changed which group is doing the defining.

Also, which do you think you will value more in a decade: a man who has loved you for the last decade or an over-priced piece of paper that you are still paying off?

I have heard Katie’s dilemma from countless young women. Many feel ashamed about being too relationship-oriented in their 20s. Parents warn, “Do you really want to settle down so early? We just don’t want to see you miss out on any opportunities.” Friends intone, “How will you know what you like and want if you don’t play the field? You’re only young once. Now’s the time to explore.”

I think these parents and “friends” are going to have a lot to answer for on judgment day. What kind of idiotic advice is that?

Like Hamilton and Armstrong’s respondents, many young and aspiring women with whom I spoke felt as though it were counterproductive to their development to prioritize a relationship with a man.

Because human relationships are not a part of self-development?

This is a new phenomenon that goes against the grain of centuries of female socialization.

Because the desire for human relationships is something socialized?

Anxiety is difficult to tolerate, and rather than experience it, many of the young women I interviewed and work with in my psychotherapy practice split their desire for a relationship off from their professional and self-development desires. Confused about freedom and desire, young women often split their social and psychological options—independence, strength, safety, control, and career versus connection, vulnerability, need, desire, and relationships—into mutually exclusive possibilities in life. Romantic relationships then often become something to be avoided and denigrated rather than embraced.

Wow. Why would any women tolerate this kind of psychological self-annihilation?

Why? Why would women put up with an ideology that required them to destroy themselves?

I find this more sad than maddening, but if I were a women, I would be pissed over this.

****

Slate XX commented on this. Read:

How can you want a relationship if you have no prospects? Unless you’re actually casually dating someone (or have a secret crush on someone you interact with regularly), actively “wanting” a boyfriend seems rather silly to me.

Really? It’s silly to desire the basic human need of companionship?

Ellen Tarlin: I disagree. I think it’s almost unavoidable. Relationships are so romanticized and overvalued in our society! We are plagued by images of them.

Materialistic nihilism on full display.

Laura Helmuth: I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but I am kind of thrilled that this is considered embarrassing among smart young women.Having a boyfriend and/or being well on the way to marriage used to be the default for twentysomethings. It’s fascinating that the social stigma has reversed so dramatically.

I am thrilled that women are denying their basic human desires and needs to pursue empty corporate work and a consumerist lifestyle.

Hanna Rosin: I feel like this moment we’re in now of shame about the boyfriend is great and necessary for progress and all that but will recalibrate and settle down.

Is she a fucking sadist?

Emma Roller: On the other side of this, I feel a lot of guilt for having a wonderful, stable relationship with my boyfriend of two-plus years. I’m  anxious about missing out on what the zeitgeist says the 20s lifestyle “should” be (playing the field, etc.), but what if I’m happy where I’m at?

Please re-read that, and just think about it for a minute. “I feel a lot of guilt for having a wonderful, stable relationship with my boyfriend of two-plus years.”

Juliana Jimenez: I hear you. I sometimes get a bit anxious over that as well—that I’m missing my 20s and I’m really living a 30s kind of life with my stable boyfriend and what not.

Again, consider that.

Meg Wiegand: I guess I’m the minority here: I’m in my late 20s, perpetually single, and very much worried about not finding someone. I know I’m absolutely fine on my own, and like Aisha, I’ve rarely met anyone I would ever want to consider being ”attached” to. But I continue to bounce on and off online dating sites and go on dates with friends of friends (mostly just ending up with great cocktail fodder) in hopes of finding someone who could be a partner.

Part of me is embarrassed by this—that I’ve escaped small-town Ohio and lived abroad and have a master’s degree but can’t find a partner. The other part feels that society already tells me that I should be ashamed of my body fat and short legs and hair that isn’t straight and blond, so why should I take this any more seriously? And why is this any different than feeling lonely because my family members and close friends are a plane ride away?

Wow. You could write an entire post just on these two paragraphs. It’s like every manosphere stereotype of modern American women rolled into two paragraphs.

Alyssa Rosenberg: What strikes me as weird about this conversation, and why this shift in priorities doesn’t seem like a complete feminist victory, is that it discounts the idea that a relationship can be an incredible source of support for career and life goals. Having someone who, say, helps with chores to give you more time to study or work, or who encourages you when you’re discouraged, or works in a similar field and helps you with ideas, who backs you publicly, etc? All this stuff can make it much easier to work harder and in a more productive way or to work through difficult challenges. I’m not sure we should get psyched by the idea that young women don’t want relationships but rather by the idea that women want more from their relationships or that we view relationships as part of a larger matrix of things that can work well together.

Alyssa here is comparatively rational. She sounds almost human and not like she had her heart replaced by the archives of Jezebel.

Ellen Tarlin: Because twentysomething men are selfish! (Joke. Sort of.) No, I’d say because these ideas about what women should be or do die hard. Your boyfriend or husband may support the ideals of feminism, but when he gets home, maybe he’d just really like it if you would make dinner, too. (Who wouldn’t?)

Read that again: “No, I’d say because these ideas about what women should be or do die hard.”

Think on it for a minute. You should now realize how insane this whole thing.

These women are sitting around discussing a sadistic, near-psychopathic (feminist) societal expectation that is causing women to annihilate themselves and their base human desires, and celebrating it because it destroys older societal expectations.

Dear women, why do you listen to people like this?

Why do you take the advice of people like this?

Why?

I don’t know, there’s not much left to say. This makes me sad.

****

* Severe autists, clinical psychopaths, and others with a natural inability to form human relations excepted.

Obliviousness, Incivility, and the Destruction of the Old Order

I came across this article from some feminist who, according to the little blurb at the bottom, has written for “Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.” In it she complains of the incivility of men in public:

It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m leaving a bar with my roommate sometime after midnight. We’re on a quest for tacos and we’re discussing the finer points—Should we get pork or beef? From where? How many?—when you decide to make our conversation your business. You’ve been loitering outside the bar with your friends, but you hear the word “taco” and soon you’re in lock step with us, asking us about our “tacos,” laughing, hooting back to your friends. We push past—literally shoving you—and continue on our way.

Here are some things you should know about my week: I’m on the phone with my mom on my way to yoga when a guy leans out of a doorway, drags on his cigarette and gestures with his pelvis how much he is enjoying my yoga pants. I’m walking home from the grocery store and a middle-aged guy, maybe high, maybe drunk, yells at me, “Get back here, girl!” I’m waiting for the bus when a carful of bros whips by; one leans out the passenger window, points at the girls waiting at the bus stop and yells, “Yes, Yes, No…Yes!” After work, I’m walking from the train to my apartment and four teenagers are trailing me, discussing my body, guessing measurements; they know I can hear them.

This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes; rape or violence would not seem to be an impossibility in some of these situations and given the inherent physical inequalities between the sexes there is little she could do to defend herself (excepting carrying a gun, which someone who writes for Jezebel is unlikely to do).

This is not my issue with what she has written. The incivility of modern times sometimes irks me as well, although, as a tall, broad-shouldered man with confident bearing, I rarely worry for my physical safety.

Rather, my issue is that, as feminists are wont to do, she blames “the patriarchy” for the incivility of ruffians.

She, of course, being an miseducated feminist is oblivious to the twin facts that:

1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.

2) The left-wing feminist politics she advocates are the primary cause of this breakdown.

Because of this her analysis, such that it is, is flawed.

****

Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous. These men laughing at a woman’s “taco”, grabbing ass, and doing pelvic-thrusts, are acting out their natural sexuality.

At one point in our society, this would have been unacceptable behaviour. Under the old order, lovingly referred to as the patriarchy, but probably more accurately referred to as civilization, civility towards woman was standard; it was called chivalry.

Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.

As an example of the sort of man the old order raised, we can use one Samuel Proctor, who tipped his hat towards a woman. When said woman asked what that meant he replied:

Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”

A man raised in the old order as Mr. Proctor was, would never have even considered joking about a woman’s “tacos”.

Civilization was used to control men’s natural sexual aggressiveness to create men like Mr. Proctor, who acted civilized and would control their aggressive sexuality for the betterment of society and the safety of women.

Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.

They won.

This cabal destroyed the old order and with it the control it had over men’s sexuality.

Men are now free to be uncivil brutes. Civilization no longer holds full sway over them.

Hence, “tacos.”

****

So, in finale:

Dear Feminist,

This is the world you desired.

You and your ideological kin spent decades ruthlessly destroying the old order which kept men civilized. You smashed the patriarchy which kept men’s naturally externalized sexuality healthly internalized and productively directed.

You denigrated the institutions which controlled men, smashed the civilization which ordered men, and have created a generation of brutes and half-men.

You asked for sexual license. Men are now free to express their sexuality without consequence.

You asked for freedom to pursue hedonism. Men are now pursuing hedonism.

You asked to be freed from the rules of civilized conduct. Men are now freed from these rules as well.

You rejected your role as a lady. Men are rejecting their role as gentlemen.

These rules were made to protect you, dear woman. The patriarchy was made for your benefit. The old order existed to serve you.

You desired, nay demanded, them destroyed, and destroyed they have been.

When you destroy civilization, incivility will be the order of the day.

You have got what you asked for, enjoy it.

Regards,

A Traditionalist

Friend Zone: Wherein I Agree with a Feminist

I came across this article by a feminist on the “friend zone” concept. My anti-feminism is readily apparent to any reading my blog, but this time I have to give her credit, she’s right.

The friend zone, for those of you older folks not hip to the jive, refers to:

a platonic relationship where one person wishes to enter into a romantic relationship, while the other does not. It is generally considered to be an undesirable situation by the lovelorn person.”

The vast majority of the time the man is the one being friendzoned. (Although, I did end up friend zoning a female friend once).

Anyway, she posits three reasons why the friendzone concept “sucks”:

1) It ignores the actual wishes of the woman
2) It displays an entitled attitude to a woman’s body
3) It posits that the worst thing ever is to be “just” friends with a woman
4) It’s a go to complaint of guys who are actually deeply misogynistic

I agree with her on all four.

Remember men: you are not entitled to sex.* A women’s body is her own, as your body is yours. You have not claim on hers, she has not claim on yours.

Being a “nice guy” no more entitles you to her vagina than it does to my labour or freedom.

If you want sex, win it. Develop yourself as a person to the point where women want to give you sex.

By being friends with a women solely to get in her pants you are disrespecting her and manipulating her. You are using her as a means, not an end. You are not actually her friend, you are an ass. You are not a “nice guy”, you’re an entitled jerk.

I know all the women, movies, TV shows, and authority figures in your life have told you to just be yourself, make friends with her, and you’ll get the girl. That’s bollocks.

If you want a romantic relationship, develop romance first, friendship after (or grow both together). If you want a wife, same thing.

If you simply want to use a woman for sex, than be honest about it. Game the shit out of her, sex her, then dump her the morning after like a proper player. Use a woman who wants to be used. Don’t screw around pretending to be friends with a women and hoping to prey on a moment of weakness, you ass. It’s not only a jerk move and immoral, it’s also a waste of your time.

And yes, you’re damn right I’m shaming you.

Because, here’s the thing, the friend zone is not only disrespectful to the woman, it’s far more disrespectful to yourself.

You are showing how low you think your value is (very low), as you are willing to waste so much of yourself on nothing more but a very low probability chance of romance with a woman.

You are showing how worthless your friendship is, by offering it solely in the hopes of getting sex.

You are emasculating yourself by putting yourself under the power of a woman.

By being friendzoned, you show your time and effort are worthless, as you have so much of it to waste on faking a friendship you don’t actually want.

You are showing how desperate you are as your only hope of romantic success is to spend your life hoping to prey on a moment of weakness.

Remember, you will be treated exactly as you believe you deserve to be treated in life. By allowing yourself to be friend zoned you are showing you deserve to be disrespected and are not worthy of a real romantice relationship.

I’m shaming you. By allowing yourself to be friend zoned you are showing yourself to be worthy of shame.

The friend zone is for losers. Don’t be a loser.

Don’t be this guy.

If you are, you deserve the pain you get.

Have some some self-respect.

So, here is the remedy, here is what you need to get from this post:

If you are currently in the friend zone with a woman, stop spending time with that woman. Cut her off from your life and stop being “friends” with her. Stop thinking about her. Do not spend your time, effort, or resources on her. Do not respond to her requests for your time or effort.

Be like Mike.

If you ask a girl out, and she says no, cut off contact with her. Don’t go out with her as friends, don’t spend time with her, do not get into long phone calls or text exchanges with her, etc.

If you are in the friend zone or about to be put in the friend zone by any woman, cut her out of your life. Do not be “just friends” (how I hate that phrase).

If she asks why she’s being cut out of your life, tell her the truth. You want to be romantic partners with her and do not desire and will not accept anything else.

Man up and stop disrespecting yourself (and others).

****

Also, a sidenote:

While writing this I almost (did?) wrote or implied that a romantic relationship is more than a friendship and that being friends is settling for less.

It is not.

No relationship is higher than that of a virtuous friendship, the highest form of relationship you can have. A marriage is also the highest form of relationship you can have.

A marriage and a virtuous friendship are equal in value. They fill different needs in your life but both are equal, neither is better, neither is more.

A romantic relationship that is not a marriage (or becoming a marriage) should always be worth less than a friendship.

If it is not, your priorities are wrong. Fix them.

It is sad commentary on modern society that friendship has somehow become worth less than romance. The general acceptance of the phrase “just friends” is a tragedy.

Do not devalue the value of your friendships by being friendzoned.

****

None of this is to say you can’t have a friendship with a woman. Some (not many, but some) women are worth having as friends. Some women can be enjoyable, productive friends without drama, BS, emotional games, attention whoring, etc.

You just have to choose carefully and make sure you are not romantically interested in her.

But do not befriend a woman when you do not value the friendship in and of itself. Friendship is an end, it is not a means to a further end.

Despite my ‘romance first, then friends’ declaration above, you can have friends first, then romance, but only in very narrow circumstances. If the friendship is the end in itself and the romantic relationship evolves naturally with no attempt or desire from yourself to try to force it, then there’s no problem.

****

For those women (and men) who have “friends” that you know are in a friend zone relationship in regards to you, my advice is the same, stop spending time with them.

They are not your friend, they are using you. Even if they are your friend, being in the friend zone hurts, end their suffering.

As I said, I put a women in the friend zone (and knew she was there). At the time I didn’t realize it, but after it all came to a head and the friendship ended because of the friend zone thing, I realized I had been hurting her through the whole time we were friends, simply by being friends. I regret allowing it to get to the point, I should have cut it off earlier.

Learn from my example, do what’s best for both of you, and end that friendship.

If you have a friend-zoned “friend” and do not want to give it up because of the attention you receive, because you get free stuff, because you like the unrecipricated adulation, or some other selfish reason. You are an asshole. Stop it!

Anyone who manipulates a friend-zoned “friend” for selfish benefit is a horrible person.

****

* Excepting where you are biblically married and/or you and your wife got married on the agreement not to deny each other sex, in which case you are both obligated to provide sex to and entitled to sex from each other.

Hypocritical Entitlement

Ian wrote about Hugo Schwyzer’s latest word vomit, so I checked it out (the link is to Google Cache: no cookie for you Gawker).

We’ll ignore the fact that he and his feminist allies have absolutely no empathy for the millions of young men hurting (yes, hurting) from involuntary celibacy. Fuck ‘em, they’re just men.

We’ll ignore the fact that assholes like Schwyzer and his feminist allies have been lying to men for decades about what attracts women and then when these men follow through on the lies they’ve been told, the assholes gather around and bully them for it.

We’ll ignore how Schwyzer completely ignores the privilege women have when it comes to the availability of sex, despite him and the rest of the Uncle Tim’s being all about the exposure of privilege.

Ian does an excellent job of analyzing Hugo’s spiteful piece, so I’m not going to. Read Ian’s article.

Instead, I’m going focus on the self-righteous hypocrisy of this little bit:

Sex with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional orgasms provided for them others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent disabled men on trips to Amsterdam to see sex workers, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. NGOKC reminds us just how many young men are outraged at this reality that attractiveness, charm, and fuckability are not and never can be equally distributed.

Remember, sex is not a basic human right.

Men are not entitled to sex.

But, women are entitled to your labour (in the form of welfare, food, shelter, and health care).

Nothing seems abnormal about this, this is what you were raised on.

This is what you were raised on; words that should provoke skepticism.

One random commenter explains the general just of the mood at Jezebel:

Because they aren’t entitled to women’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel women are “privileged” when it comes to sex on demand.

You aren’t entitled to a women’s body.

But they are entitled to yours.

You work, you sweat, you break your back, you endure inanity, boredom, idiocy, and bureuacracy for 40+ hours a week. Women are entitled to about 40% of that.

Women are entitled to about 2 days of your labour, 16 hours, every week. They are entitled to take this through the threat of force, violently supported by the guns of the police.

But a half-hour a week of mutually pleasurable activity. Nope, men aren’t entitled to it.

If you attempt to deprive them of your hard work, of your labour, of your body, you go to jail. The IRS (or the CRA for Canucks) will see to it. But if you are deprived of sex, of their body, meh, fuck you (you wish).

Women are entitled to your body, but you aren’t entitled to theirs.

It’s simple: either people are entitled to the bodies of others for attaining their basic needs (of which sex would be one) or they are not.

To say otherwise is hypocrisy.

Turn it around:

Because they aren’t entitled to men’s bodies regardless of how much you personally feel men are “privileged” when it comes to economic outcomes.

Wonder what the Jezebellers would think of this? (Hint: Read 1 Kings 18:1-18)

****

The next time someone demands the state pay welfare for the societal parasites, ask when the state will ensure you have your *ahem* basic needs met.

When the person reacts in a horrified manner (as they invariably will) ask why the parasites basic biological needs are more important than yours.

When they bring up consent, choice, “my body, my choice”, entitlement, or whatever other slogans they substitute for thought, ask why you don’t have a choice and why the parasites are entitled to your body.

Continue to rhetorically poke around a bit and listen to the verbal diarrhea they issue forth pretending it’s a logical argument. You won’t accomplish anything, but you might get some lulz.

****

So, am I saying women should be forced to give sex to those men who need it?

Hells no.

I’m saying no one is entitled to the body of another. Men are not entitled to women’s bodies, women are not entitled to men’s bodies.

I just want the hypocritical wankery to stop.

But I know it won’t.

Women’s entitlement to the labour of men is so thoroughly entrenched that most reading this will either miss the point or be horrified.

So it goes, back to your drudgery. Those single mothers aren’t going to feed themselves.

****

Side-note:

I wonder what Schwyzer and his ilk would think of a Tumblr called Nice Girls of OKCupid where users made disparaging comments about the profiles of fat/ugly women, sluts, ignorant women, and single mothers outlining their “great personalities”?

Oh, and to head off the initial objections to the comparison: women, the feeling you get about “creeps” is exactly the feeling men get about “fatties” and “sluts”. Not that it matters, you’ll discount men’s feelings anyway.

Keep the State out of Women’s Bodies… Except When Convenient

One major theme in this year’s presidential election was that of the “war on women”.

The complaint was and  essentially that the state shouldn’t get involved in women’s reproductive choices.

I agree.

With the exception of abortion, where a child’s life is involved, the state should leave women alone and let them make their own reproductive choices. They should be free to do as they will and live with the consequences.

But, feminists lie. They do not want the state to let them make their own reproductive choices. They want the state to force them (and others) to only accept certain reproductive choices.

Feminists want privilege and choice, not freedom.

****

Here’s a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern women espousing the creed of keep your hands off my body.

a woman in a country where politicians who actually believe that the female body has special powers to discern between evil sperm and loving sperm have been elected to create and vote on legislation that limits women’s control over their own health care.
…
“Perhaps remove the focus from that one point and think instead about the free abortions and contraceptives that will be given to all females of reproductive age… Or about the Muslims, Christian scientists, and Amish ( among others) that are exempt from obamacare due to religious beliefs….”

She goes on and on, hitting every talking point FoxNews and its ilk have drummed into her head, including the legitimacy (there’s that word again) of Obama’s citizenship and his ties to socialism. It was all a bunch of moronic nonsense, but what stood out to me the most was her first line: “Perhaps remove the focus from that one point” — that “one point” being a woman’s right to control her own health care choice, as if that point weren’t worthy of our focus!! This was a woman saying this! A woman who was fed the bullshit and ate it up with a spoon, just like the GOP wanted.

By “limiting a women’s control over their own health care” she obviously means don’t want others to  pay for it, even if it goes against their religious principles.

She says she wants the state out of her body, but she’s very clearly inviting the state into her body by having the state pay for her health care.

Her next complaint is about how crime effects women: a valid point, but ignores how it also effects men and children. It’s not part of this topic, so we’ll mostly ignore it.

I didn’t get any paid maternity leave when my baby was born. I work for myself, so I wasn’t expecting any, of course. But here in America, even if I had been working for someone else, that person or that company would not have been required by law to give me even a day of paid maternity leave. Not even an hour. My job would have been held for a few weeks, but that’s it.

I started a new moms’ group when I was pregnant and most of us all had babies within a few weeks of each other. Some of the women took extended maternity leave — six whole months — so they could stay home with their babies until they started, you know, sleeping for more than three hours at a stretch. They weren’t paid for that leave, and they worried as their savings dwindled what they’d do if there were an emergency and they missed more work.

Here she demands that the state pay for and legislate her reproduction. She’s demanding her workplace interfere with her body. She’s begging the state and corporations to involve themselves in her reproductive choices.”When they did go back, they had to deal not only with juggling motherhood and their careers, but also with navigating the office politics surrounding working mothers. One woman, a producer at a major network news station, worried about being overlooked for assignments that would require her to travel now that she was a single mother of an infant. She worried about being overlooked for promotions and raises now that her “focus was split.” “I don’t want to be mommy-tracked,” she lamented, as she plotted ways to ensure topnotch child care for her daughter should her commitment to work be “tested” with a last-minute assignment that would take her out of town with just hours to prepare.”

Here she’s lamenting that the employer is not becoming involved these women’s reproductive choices.

How dare those corporations stay out of women’s private lives!

Many of my new mom friends who returned to work months after giving birth continued breastfeeding, which brought the new challenge of pumping at the office (or, “in the field,” in the case of my producer and journalist friends). They told me stories about the “designated areas” for them to pump, which are required by law. One woman, a clinical psychologist, pumped in a supply closet with a broken lock on the door. She kept one hand on her pump and one hand holding the door shut in case anyone wondered why the light was on and barged in on her without knocking. Finally, she put a sign on the door, but it was gone the next day and she had to make a new one. That one came down the next day, too.

Not content with the state and workplace involving themselves in her reproductive choices, she desperately wants the state and employers to further interfere in women’s breast-feeding decisions.

She notes that the state interferes in her breastfeeding decisions, but the tone of lament clearly indicates that the state is not interfering enough.

How dare they let women be free to make their own breastfeeding decisions!

Our rights are at risk — our basic rights — not to mention the fact that many of us are afraid, on a daily damn basis, of being attacked — legitimately attacked — simply because we are women.

This election year, vote to keep your rights. Vote for the people who are going to fight to protect you. And fight to keep the morons and the assholes and the douchebags out of power and out of our bodies.

She ends with a hypocritical statement about keeping people out of women’s bodies. How fitting when she spent the article arguing that other should involve themselves in women’s bodies and that this involvement was the basic right of the female.

One final observation, somewhere in the middle of her article she says:

I need a chaperone because some crazy douchebags think my body is public property. Hmm, I wonder wherever in the world they got that idea.

My suggestion: if you don’t want your body being viewed as public property, don’t act like it is by having the public pay for its upkeep.

****

This was just one example I’m using for illustrative purposes that I happened to come across while thinking about this post. I could find numerous others, but the point is made: No matter what the issue, most modern women want the state in their bodies. They beg for it, they vote for it.

They will selectively say they don’t on certain issues. They will dissemble about what the “state in their bodies” means. They will flat out lie, saying they don’t. But when it comes down to it:

The modern women fervently desires state interference in her reproductive choices.

It’s a  broad-brush generality, NAWALT, I know, but most modern women who would say something like “keep your rosaries out of my ovaries,” “my body, my choice,” “keep the state out of our bodies,” or whatever, truly want the state interfering in their bodies.

They want the state to pay for their contraception.

They demand the state pay for their abortions and reproductive health care decisions.

They demand the state educate children on sexuality, contraception, and reproduction.

They demand the employer subsidizes their reproductive choices.

They demand the employer and state make their breast-feeding choices for them.

They demand their employer make their personal work-life balance for them.

They demand the state dictate their private marriage contracts (and then demand that the state dictate homosexuals’ private relationship contracts).

The modern women demands that the state and society involves itself intimately in her personal, sexual, and reproductive choices… but only when its convenient for her.

She demands privilege without responsibility. She demands society cater to her every whim, without her having

She detests others’ freedom, but argues for it for herself when it suits her.

She demands you pay for her every whim, but denies you any say.

She is tyrannical, irresponsible, and greedy.

****

To women reading this: either the state and society are involved in your body and your reproductive choices or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways.

You can not demand that the state not regulate contraception, then demand that the state (or other organizations under the compulsion of the state) pay for your contraception.

You can not demand leave itself out of women’s abortion decisions, then demand that the state pay for abortion providers such as planned parenthood.

You can not demand that public schools stay out of dictating women’s sexual choices, then demand they engage in mandatory sexual education.

You can not demand that the public not comment on your reproductive choices, then demand that they pay for the maintenance of your children.

You can not demand the public refuse to comment on your sexual choices, then force the public to subsidize your sexual lifestyle and health care needs.

You can not demand that your employer not dictate your personal life to you, then demand your employer subsidize your maternity leave and fund your personal choices.

You can not demand that the church remove itself from your reproductive choices, then demand that the church pay for your reproductive choices.

It is an either-or proposition.

Either the state has the right to interfere in your sexuality and reproductive choices or it does not. Either the public has the right to interfere with your sexuality or it does not. Either your employer can interfere in your personal life, or it can not.

You are either free or you are not.

Make the choice.

If you choose to invite others into your sexual, reproductive, and personal lives, do not hypocritically complain when they do.

****

In conclusion, the modern women, however much she may protest otherwise, desperately desires that others involve themselves in her reproductive and sexual choices, but only when it is convenient to her.

So, next time a modern women says the state should stay out of her uterus, ask her opinion on mandatory maternity leave. Point out the contradiction. Point out her hypocrisy.

Lightning Round – 2012/10/24

Are you masculine enough to deserve the feminine woman you demand?
Related: Feminism can not exist where masculine men do.

The Captain gives entitled whiners a smack down.

Oneitis causes death.

A good wife is a home maker; a bad wife is a home breaker.

A women declaring oneself a born-again virgin would be a greater deal-breaker than her not being a virgin. If a woman has slutted it up, she should at least be honest about it instead of living in self-delusion.

Marriage: What’s in it for men?

Athol has a post on the effect of vasectomies on sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a negative effect, as semen gives benefits to women and a  vasectomy may block some of those.

This seems fake to me. I’ve never seen a women be that rationally calculating before.

An interesting hypothesis: Feminists cry because they are brain-damaged.

I am in favour of chivalry as a concept, but I believe it should be reserved for ladies and not wasted on ungrateful feminists, sluts, and egalitarians.

Sometimes, Roissy can really turn a phrase.

The etymology of the word slut. It is exclusively female.
Related: SSM has a revelation.

The Captain opines on black men and the manosphere.

A good look into the insane, rambling mind of a frivolous divorcee, hypocritical feminist, and self-indulgent narcissist. Fascinating reading of a hamster going full-tilt if you can stomach the pure, unfiltered mind vomit of a horrible example of womanhood.

The church-going travails of a traditionalist.

Teaching teens game. I’m interested in how this will go.

Proof of the attractiveness of the dark triad.

Seems Frost has jumped on the Koanic Tech/Edenism band wagon. Not sure if I buy it, but it’s interesting. I plan to learn more.
Related: Forney has created an Edenic link aggregator.

Frost is picking himself up after arriving back to where he began.

Let the boomers starve.
Related: Screw the boomers, they fucked us over hard.

The “war on women” is a dangerous myth.
Related: Women are beginning to realize the damage feminism has done.

Whited Sepulchre prescribes some truth pills on Obamacare.
Related: Death panels? What death panels?
Related: Yeah… Our health care is not better than the Yanks’.

Vox has an interesting post on the lawsuit against the Italian geologists. Not sure what to think, but he makes a persuasive argument.

Wright on why libertarian purists should vote for Romney.
Related: Romney kills a speech and rips liberal a new one.
Related: Why are there so few female libertarians? I think it’s simply because women are herd creatures, while libertarianism is an individualist philosophy.

If Romney’s stable family and home threaten your values, there’s probably something wrong with you.

Tim 2012. I’d vote for him.

The squeeze on the middle class.

The people you meet on public transit. Hehe.

If you’re giving child support and poor, it’s about to get worse.

Some humour from /b/. Hehe.

The unintended side effects of divorce on ballroom dancing.

Steyn on the feds controlling children’s lunches.

I might have linked this before, but it bear repeating. Paul Krugman is a dishonest hack.
Related: An excellent chart comparing the Reagan recovery and the Obama “recovery”.

Peak oil is the BS of dishonest hacks.

The IRS sells your private information for only $35.

The implications of being able to genetically identify potential future criminals.

12-year-old shoots home intruder. Props to her.

(H/T: SDA, Instapundit, Maggie’s Farm, SSM, Alpha Game)

Why Would Any Self-Respecting Male be an Ally?

Trigger Warning: Some mansplaining goin’ down here.

A couple weeks back, I read Occupy Misandry (h/t: Mojo). It’s about one guy’s experiences at the Occupy Wall Street kerfluffle. He was your typical left-wing rage against the machine type, who describes himself as a “one-time Marxist feminist”. Here’s his experience:

The progressive stack technique is a something that compels the rotationally appointed stack-keeper to move people forward (or backward) on the speaker list depending on several criteria – chiefly, whether or not you were deemed to belong to a minority group or, conversely, whether you were apprehended as being part of the dominating class. It was there and then that I was duly informed that, as a white heterosexual male, I was a member of this dominating privileged echelon and that if I wanted to address the assembly, I may have to forgo my place in the line a myriad of times, in order to let others, who have been ‘traditionally denied a voice,’ to scoot in ahead of me. Women (surprise, surprise!) were always escorted to the front of the queue because, although they were not a minority per se, they were ausländers – outliers in that political hinterland beyond the perimeter fence of the big, bad encampment of domination.

This was not the first time I had ever had my ostensible privilege stare me in the face – but this time it felt a little different: it was suddenly right the fuck up in my face. Being a one-time Marxist feminist, this perennial charge of patriarchal privilege was bitter medicine, yet one that I felt compelled to imbibe. I had been holding my nose and swallowing this tincture, ever since the mid 1980’s. It seemed a small price to pay for trying to make the world a fairer place for all. And like most medicine, you tend to ignore the rancid taste because you are led to believe it is good for you, that it is curative.

This blatant discrimination from those supposedly opposed to it, unsurprisingly angered our soon-to-be MRA. Another little incident cements this, and he becomes disillusioned with left-wing shibboleths (welcome to the club). He became an MRA.

My immediate advice to him is to dig further. The far left may be particularly repellent in their lies, but even the “centrist” and “conservative” progressivism that dominates modern society are the same pill with a lighter blue hue. The MRA still buys into the dominant progressivist paradigm.

But that’s not my point today, my point today is simply to ask, rather rhetorically, what possesses a man to sacrifice himself to become an “ally” in the first place?

****

Sidenote: In left-wing sociological terminology, majority and minority are not numerative descriptors, it doesn’t matter which group there is more of or less of. It is a descriptor of power, whichever group is the most dominant (according to left-wing ideology) is the majority. For example, even though whites have only made up 10-20% of South Africans over the last few decades, they would be the “majority” simply because whites are dominant. So women, despite being half the population, would be a “minority” in sociological newspeak.

****

First, the term ally. An ally is someone who supports the political activism of the grievance industry that purports to represent a “minority” group but is not of that minority group. (It should be noted, not every left-wing crusader agrees with the use of the term allies, while others think otherwise). Examples of allies could include a heterosexual who supports gay rights, a male who supports feminism, or a white person that supports affirmative action and “anti-racism”. John Scalzi, Tim Wise, and Hugo Schwyzer are a few allies those of the manosphere may be more familiar with (although, I do not know if they would self-describe thus). People in the manosphere would likely refer to them as manginas.

Anyway, why would any male with any amount of self-respect decide to become an ally to the grievance industries which hate and disrespect them so?

The examples of left-wing  disrespect and callousness for their allies abound. There’s a newborn MRA up there. There’s Hugo Shwyzer getting thrown under a bus, which happened after he threw the founder of the Good Men project under the bus. There are other examples, but even more convincing is the general undertone of disrespect leftists grievance groups, especially feminists, have for their allies. The amount of intense anger feminists display towards those trying to be their allies is crazy. Even the male allies get in on making demands males must follow.

Let’s say you’re sympathetic and want to learn how to be an ally or be a better one. Nope, educate yourself; no cookie for you.

****

So people don’t think I’m cherry-picking certain posts or extremists, this kind of demanding, angry, condescending is steeped throughout the grievance industry; it even forms the very basis of a lot of their language.

I didn’t just use the phrase “no cookie for you”, the cookie concept is a part of the language. It’s used to mock men who try to get on activists’ good side by buying into their frame. (Although, from my understanding, it’s become somewhat more positive on occasion.  The condescension of the concept is (or at least should be) humiliating for those who seek or receive them. Now, I think men who suck up to left-wing activists deserve mockery and humiliation, but they’re not trying to be my ally.

Other concepts major concepts among feminists also reek of condescension and humiliation of their supposed allies.

Check your privilege – When an ally starts talking from a position of “privilege”, this is used to get them to rethink their privilege. Essentially, it’s used a weapon for silencing those whose opinions don’t matter as much (ie. anyone not in the victim group).  Even some feminists think that it’s overused as a silencing tactic.

(Man)splaining – When a “privileged” person tries to explain something to a “non-privileged” person. Essentially, as “Michael Hawkins” learned in the comments here, mansplaining is whenever a man tries to debate with a feminist. Remember, a feminist knows everything, and trying to be helpful or having your own opinion is sexist. (Hint: Never help a feminist).

Gaslighting – Gaslighting was actually a respectable word used in psychology used for when sociopaths abused someone into believing unreality (see: public education). Feminists got hold of the concept and now gaslighting means anytime you point out to a women she is getting overemotional or anytime a women gets offended and you argue there’s no need to be. Remember, feminists never personalize, never get overly emotional, and never overreact. So, if you criticize a women for threatening suicide because you did not buy her a coke, you’re gaslighting.

Pretty much, all of these are used to silence, intimidate, and marginalize the “privileged” who dare interact with a feminist.

****

Of course, evil patriarchs like me don’t care and aren’t silenced. If logic, self-control, and reason are considered mansplaining and gaslighting, then I’ll cop to both. And, no, I won’t check my privilege and don’t care in the least about their cookies. (I only want cookies made out of love by someone feminine or mass-produced in a factory engineered, designed, and built by men).

Nope, those of us who think feminism is a load of crap, aren’t effected or silenced.

So who are marginalized?

Allies.

Those weak liberal suck-ups who try to get on feminists’ good side (good luck, you have a 1/360 chance). Those are the ones whose voices are silenced. Those are the ones are ostracized by those they try to please the unpleaseable.

They’re the ones who want the cookie, so they’re the ones who’ll try to earn it and will be disappointed when they realize they’re mansplaining out of their privilege and therefore, their opinion is worthless.

Some will realize this, like our newfound ally up there, but others, the manginas of the manginas, will continue to try to “check their privilege” and like good little doggies beg for their cookies.

But why?

Why would any man with even an ounce of self-respect put up this?

Why would any man accept being constantly condescended to and humiliated?

What do they get out of it?

Is it worth it?

What could possibly possess a man to prostrate himself before feminists and hand them his balls?

Lightning Round – 2012/10/17

Read this post. Ian knocks it out of the park on Happily Ever After.
Related: The boomers destroyed traditional society, now, they reap the consequences.
Related: Childless women are miserably happy.
Related: Twu Wuv and game.

Feminist realizes traditional courtship is pretty good.
Related: 5 dates; what a lucky guy.
(Dude, if you somehow come across this: RUN NOW).
Related: Said feminist was a fraud.
Related: Feminist sex is a fraud.

Manosphere news: In Mala Fide has returned as an archive. It starts well.
More News: Congrats to the Captain.

When civil society dies, people will vote for their own self-interest.

Men are trained to be more afraid of fighting than of being hurt.

Violence is ok if it’s anti-ideological. Only sick people have ideology.

“One wonders if there’s a high correlation between “Angry Radical Leftists” and “Folks Who Don’t Get Math” ?”

Educated women’s contempt for men.
Related: Another article on snark; humour for the mentally enfeebled (when used in excess).
Related: A women mistakes feminist snark for humour.

Florida gets itself race-based academic goals.
GL Piggy comments.
Elusive Wapiti comments.
Related: I agree with France on the no homework thing, but their reason is idiotic.
Related: Education is not scalable.

Men struggle in marriage; the MSM is almost catching on.
Even the NYT notices it (in Italy).

How the destruction of marriage effects the welfare state.
Related: Bread and circuses.
Related: Is it really a win if the other team forfeits?

40% of every small business dollar goes to regulations.
Related: Thank you ADA.
Related: This guy is a total bastard.

“Nagging begot the Nanny State on Steroids.”

Women spend more on health care. Am I ever surprised.

The moral case for capitalism.
Related: An economics experiment.

Oh California…

The MSM, only a few months behind the Captain. Some day they’ll catch up.

Society is of women, civilization is of men.
Related: Cliques are for high school girls, not men.

The manosphere loves women by saving them from themselves.

SMP is harsh for both men and women. You can’t always get what you want.
As this guy exemplifies.
So does this women.

A man’s virginity is worth 1/100th of a woman’s. Colour me surprised.

Confidence in self-destructive choices.

What she doesn’t see, is that women enjoying womanly things is anti-feminist.

Amanda Todd was the result of a sick society. No legislation or anti-bullying will rectify this.
Related: How our schools train narcissists.

Why some parents hate parenting.

The purpose of psychiatric medication? No riots in DC.

What happens when you screw over a generation.

Science: This is kinda cool. Wonder what Koanic would say about the Denisovans?

Slowly, but surely, the MSM is coming to accept the science.

Fat is not only unhealthy, it will lower your testosterone.

The drug war explained in a single chart.

Only an over-educated, intelligent idiot could possibly believe the deficit is too small.
Only a liberal could believe we have too little debt.
Related: Krugman is a dishonest liberal shill, just like most “Keynesians”.
Related: Keynesianism just means spending.

Some thoughts from Nassim Taleb, an intellectual I actually respect.

Thomas Sowell, another intellectual I respect, shreds Obama.

That is hilarious. How do some people function in society?

Remember, Southerners, Republicans, and conservatives are racist.

4% of Americans get a “free” cell phone from the government.

Oh, for when Britain was free. How far she has fallen.

There has been no warming since 1997.

The UN needs to go.

Walmart gets into banking. Could be a game-changer.

How libertarians and alt-righters feel about the election:

(H/T: Maggie’s Farm, Instapundit, SDA, the Captain, Save Capitalism, Mojo, Patriactionary, Dalrock, the Hunt, GLP)

Feminism and Housing Costs

Today I read this (h/t: BitterBabe) and this one quote really stood out:

Commentators said yesterday that pressures on women to work and pay mortgages mean that many do not have the same choice over having families that their mothers did.

I’ve discussed feminism and choice before, and I’ve discussed how feminists are in opposition to the wants of most women before, but now I’m going to focus on something specific: housing.

I’m going to explain exactly where the “pressures on women to pay mortgages” comes from.

****

Housing is the single largest expense most people have (other than possibly taxes), taking up almost 35% of their income. Unlike most goods, which have gotten cheaper over time due to technology improvements, housing costs as a percentage of income has remained stable over time (with the possible exception of fluctuations due to the housing bubble and crash).

Why is that?

The primary reason is that housing is mostly a positional good.* The price of a house has less to do with the actual materials making the house and more with the desirability of the land the house resides on. This is why a house in New York costs so much more than the cost of a similar house in, say, Detroit.

The other reason is that people are using extra income buying larger homes.

For both these reasons, as people’s incomes grow higher they will generally increase their housing costs to match a proportion of their income. You see this all the time, where people will buy bigger and better houses even if their old houses were perfectly livable and they do not require more space for the kids they are not having.

As people buy more housing the price of housing goes up. So, over time, as people’s incomes go up, they will buy more housing, which will increase the price of housing, increasing the absolute amount spent on housing.

Because of this mechanic, the proportion of income spent on housing remains stable even as incomes go up.

****

So, what does this have to do with feminism and choice?

As more women have entered the workforce, they have contributed their income to their households. Because of this household incomes have increased, but, because of the primarily positional nature of housing, the proportion of income spent on housing by households has stayed the same.

So,to now purchase the same amount of housing you could purchase on a single income prior to women entering the workforce en masse you need the equivalent income of a two-income household.

Because of this, families are now in a position, where two incomes are required for sufficient housing space for a family in many areas.

Households wanting to live in certain areas are now required to have the women work rather than stay home simply to afford housing.

As more women enter the workforce, the viability of women choosing to stay home decreases.

Most women desire to stay home with their children, if they could afford it, and the feminist desire to have women be economically independent is removing that choice from them.

****

Of course, I have completely ignored the impacts of divorce on housing costs for former households and the impacts of increased demand. You should be able to figure them out yourselves (hint: they increase housing prices and costs).

****

Combine this with the unfeasible daycare costs I previously pointed, and you being to wonder if women moving into the working world has provided any benefits to most women.

Most women desire to stay home, but many are forced to work because they can’t afford not to.

But their biggest expense is only that big because women are working and one of their next biggest expenses only exists because they are working.

Is this what most women want? To be forced to work for little real benefit.

Question for women: Do you enjoy spending your days at work rather than with your children knowing that most of what you earn is not actually providing any real benefit to your or your children?

If not, maybe you should think about what you support.

****

Now, for budding patriarchs, this doesn’t mean your (future) wife has to work. What it does mean is that it will require sacrifices and good planning.

You will have to limit your desire for a bigger home (even as you need a bigger home than most, because you’re filling your quiver instead of vacationing in Mexico). You may have to commute longer or find a job away from the urban core. You will likely have to forgo other luxuries.

If you and your wife plan on having her be a homemaker, you will have to discuss this with her. You will have much less house than your peers, and this could lead to envy for you and your wife. You will not be able to afford yearly vacations to distant lands. There are numerous luxuries and status symbols you will have to give up.

You have to make this clear to both yourself and her that this lifestyle is a sacrifice and that both are willing to accept it.

In the long-run, which is more important to you though?

Your child being raised by his mother rather than strangers and the educational system. Or the status symbol of a bigger house and your children being forced to share a room.

*****

* It is only primarily a positional good, not totally. Housing does have a certain intrinsic worth and the materials in housing have a certain intrinsic cost, but, by comparing housing prices in high- and low-demand areas we can easily see that the costs of housing are primarily due to the comparative value of the land on which they are built, than the homes themselves. Of course, it can be argued that the value of the land is not exactly positional, in that being in geographic proximity to certain locations has its own intrinsic value, but this does not effect my point. My point only requires that the value of land is due to competition between potential buyers, for whatever reason, rather than for any immediate practical effect the land has on the utility of the home itself.