One More Condom in the Landfill

I was reading through some advice columns again and came across this nugget. It’s your typical story, a decent, young guy likes a girl and gets in a relationship. She’s not feeling it, so he piles on the beta-provider behaviours, so she ends it. The guy is such a great bloke that the ex’s mom loves him enough to invite him to a family day at Six Flags as a friend (probably with the ulterior motive that her daughter will date the guy again). The kid asks whether he should go and if he can get her back. The story’s not particularly interesting, but the columnist’s response is.

You are right not to go to Six Flags with your ex and her family. You are right to give her space. And though I wish I could tell you that time and absence will make her heart grow fonder, the truth is it probably won’t. Because the thing with 20-year-old girls is that 80% of the time, they don’t go for the guy who takes a bus six hours so they don’t have to drive home alone and they don’t go for the guy who sends them rice pilaf in the mail or the guy whom their moms are crazy about. They go for the guys who ignore them and cheat on them and break their hearts. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time.

And for a while, it seems like no one is happy because guys like you are pining away for girls like your ex and those kinds of girls are pining away for someone else and everyone is sad and a little lonely and wishing they could just love the people who already love them back. The good news is that eventually the 20-year-old girls turn into 25-, 30-, 35-year-old women and they’re tired of longing for the guys who don’t treat them well. And they long for the kind of guy who will go on a family vacation with them and help them move and bring them their favorite food. And you’re going to be in luck when that happens because you’re going to have your pick of the litter. In about 5 years or so, the kind of girl you like is going to be looking for someone exactly like YOU. And then it’s all just going to be a matter of timing to find the right match.

I know that doesn’t help you much now. It doesn’t do much to soothe your broken heart and make you feel less alone. And the only thing I can say to that is that it WILL get better. As long as you remain the sweet, thoughtful guy you are — the kind of guy moms love and girls want as their “friend,” it won’t be too long before they’re going to want so much more than that. And who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and you’ll find the rare breed of young woman who has no interest in dumb games and already understands the value of a guy who wants nothing more than to be a great boyfriend.

This has been said a thousand times around these parts, but I’m pointing it out again:

If you are decent guy, most everybody expects you to get shit on romantically and just take the lumps for a decade, then get the used-up, washed-out, emotionally-wrecked left-overs of the assholes’ pillaging.

Wendy just dismisses this, like it’s just the way it is. There’s no condemnation of the attitude, no real thought as to how thoroughly poisonous this is.

Does nobody else think there’s something disastrously wrong with this attitude?

Does nobody realize what a destructive message this sends to young men?

Does anybody even care?

How can we just casually accept that anti-social assholes get the prize, while the decent, honest builders and maintainers of civilization get the dregs, if they’re lucky?

This is how civilization dies, tiny cut, by tiny cut.

****

A commenter illustrates this perfectly:

this reminds me a lot of my own relationship as i left for college. my boyfriend was a wonderful person, and i just… didnt want to do it anymore.
…
above all, dont do what my exboyfriend did: he became a total douche. i dont know what happened, if his heart was broken so much, or if he would have turned that way regardless, but when he went off to college the year after me, he could give a shit about studying and almost failed out his first year after being top in his class, he started dating my good friend and then cheated on her all the time (and continues to, i think? yikes), after never wavering with me ever… i mean, at my joint birthday dinner, he was talking about how this random girl just started having sex with him on the lawn in front of some house at a college party. he was not that person when i knew him. so, just be you. dont get jaded, dont intentionally change just to become something you believe that girls want or whatever- just be you, and you will find someone who genuinely wants to be with you.

He’s the douche?!?

He’s just a normal guy who realized the score, being a good guy gets you rejected and your heart destroyed for no real reason at all.

Being a “douche” gets you you easy sex with strangers at a party; it gets you a loyal woman who sticks with you while you jam your cock into all varieties of foreign vagina.

She’s the one who torched a perfectly good relationship with a wonderful man so she could get her holes plugged by assholes in college. Yet, somehow he’s the douche for wanting to be one of the assholes doing the plugging rather than the loser on the outside watching the girl he loved get plugged?

You get what you incentivize.

If you learn nothing else of economics, of politics, of sociology, of psychology but this one fact, you have more understanding than most of the fools with doctorates and fancy titles. If you never get anything else from this blog, remember that phrase:

You get what you incentivize.

If you incentivize douchebaggery, you get douches. If you incentivize decency, you get decency. If being a decent fellow gets you a broken heart and being a douche gets you blown by young co-eds, any rational man is going to be douche.

So, we have more douches who fail to do do anything useful for civilization because who cares? when being an ass is enough to get you sex. We have fewer decent guys willing to pick up the burden of civilization because all it gets you is heartache and loneliness.

Thus, civilization dies as parasitism becomes the norm.

****

What’s especially, ironically funny is that a good portion of the letters at Wendy’s site are some variation of “how do I get my boyfriend to commit to me?”

These short-sighted women don’t even realize they’re destroying their own chances of commitment by rejecting the commitment-minded types in their youth and chasing the douches.

So, to men here’s the warning: if you’re a decent, commitment-minded man, don’t ever commit to a woman over 30, and be wary of committing to a woman over 25. She had her chance when she was young; she chose some asshole over you (or some other decent fellow like you) to give her youth to, why should you waste yourself on her now that its gone and she’s desperate.

No matter how much your girlfriend begs for commitment, no matter how much your mother pesters you for grandchildren, no matter how much shaming older women heap upon you, no matter how much your pastor demands you man-up, do not marry an older woman. They are simply not worth it.

If you want commitment go for those young women who are decent enough, smart enough, and love civilization enough to find a decent guy and marry young.

Demand more for yourself; demand better for yourself than the leftovers of assholes.

Demand better of the girl you want than someone who will let herself be the leftovers of the assholes.

To women, here’s the warning: if you love civilization, if you want to marry a decent, commitment-minded man, find him while you are young and don’t waste your youth on assholes. If you do, you could be one of those women in her mid-30s scheming over how to get their confirmed bachelor boyfriend to commit.

Demand better for yourselves than drunkenly blowing some cheating jackass on the lawn or being the cheated-on girlfriend.

****

I know this post and this story are not particularly insightful or novel.

It’s just another brick in the wall, just another condom in the landfill.

Just another decent young man whose heart was broken being told to suck it for a decade so he might have a shot at the leftovers.

Just another overlooked story of a once-great civilization dying, tiny, unnoticed piece by tiny, unnoticed piece.

When the last, violent, death throes of whatever is left of our civilization come, I’m going to revel in their suffering, for it will be well-deserved.

Let it burn.

Response to the 70’s Show Dude

I’ve come across this video a number of places now, most recently at Sis’. It annoyed me the first time I watched it out of curiousity, but I ignored it. But it keeps coming up, so now I want to say a couple words on the great philosophical musings of the guy who played a stoner on that show about the 70’s:

He makes three points (starting at about 2 mins in). The first and third points are unoriginal but good, opportunity comes from hard work and  build your own life, but everybody is ignoring those two. The one point everybody is focusing on is # 2:

The sexiest thing in the world is being really smart, thoughtful, and generous.  Everything else is crap, I promise you.  It’s just crap that people try to sell to you to make you feel like less, so don’t buy it!”

The first objection is that it is simply not true.

Intelligence is not sexy. If being smart was sexy, awkward nerds would would get the hot girls, engineers would be rolling in poon, Stephen Hawking would dominate People’s Sexiest Men, and porn videos would be indistinguishable from Khan’s Academy. We all know how true that is. (Protip: It’s not). Likewise, being thoughtful and generous are not sexy. Saying otherwise is just deluding the gullible.

Just because something is good, does not mean it is sexy.

But the bigger problem is not the untrue conflation of intelligence and sexiness, that’s the type of relatively minor white lie which our society so does love.

The bigger problem is that to the punked stoner sexiness is the goal of intelligence. The axiom of point #2 is a basic assumption shared by stoner dude, his screaming, teenage fans, and everybody throwing this video around is that sexiness is the the primary goal one should aspire to.

Intelligence is not lauded because it advances civilization. It is not lauded for the glory of God, or even the glory of man. It is not lauded for the good it may bring others. It is not lauded as tool for finding and acquiring virtue.

No we should not be virtuous for virtue’s sake or the greater good. We should not expand our capabilities for the betterment of man. No, you should be intelligent because it will engorge Jimmy’s dick and will make Janey tingle.

Welcome to the new hedonism, where aspiring to be a sex object is inspirational.

Guest Post from Europe

Below is a guest post from a reader that would like to remain anonymous. The post touches on a number of topics. As I’ve stated before, I am willing to put up guest posts as long as said post is of some value and is somewhat related to the blog’s general purposes.

1. I GENUINELY believe that the Abortion/Anti-Family/Birth Control/Divorce/Feminist/MarxistSocial PONZI Scheme Agenda will eventually cause TOTAL Economic & Social Collapse as some people have predicted. This will mean the END of the Cradle-to-Grave Western Social Welfare system. We will see states recognize ONE type and ONLY one type of Household, the MARRIED household. In the LONG-TERM Total Economic & Social Breakdown, which will make the Economic Mess TODAY look like a toddlers’ playschool tiff, will benefit Society, especially children. This will mean that a GOOD man of 40 – 45 years of age can marry a lady half his age and father 10 children. The young lady of 24 will have NO PROBLEM marrying a man of 40 years of age and having 9 children as HE will have a house & an income to make a family lifestyle practical. There is NO CASE known to History since people started living in caves of ANY Long-Term successful society that was NOT organized along Patriarchal lines or ‘Love, Honour & Obey YOUR Husband Ladies’ to the non-verbally-gifted in Society. On the other hand a woman older than 35 will have great difficulties becoming a mother. The State will have to make Marriage an ENFORCEABLE contract. So the spouse who wants out from a NON-Abusive spouse will be allowed or indeed forced to leave NO children, NO money & NO house, rendering the INNOCENT spouse a widow or a widower, almost. We will see a return of LARGE families of 8 – 12 children as CHILDREN become new Pensions. Sooner or later the Pensions’ Laws will be changed to link a person’s pension to the number of children that a person had. So the BIGGER the family, the BIGGER the pension you get.

2.01: Some time ago, I pointed out in a Family discussion that Society needs 3 children per couple to replace the people who die and 5 people of working age per pensioner to keep the pensions’ systems safe. I was accused of wanting to keep women PHYSICALLY chained to the kitchen sink, only being released to go to the Maternity Ward.

3. 01: As we speak “Same-Sex Marriage” is the new Liberal Agenda demand, being compared to Martin Luther King & Civil Rights, according to our Deputy Prime Minister recently. The Government has introduced Abortion into Ireland, while the same politicians who make their “Reproductive Health Care” speeches on Monday will make their “Looming Pensions Crisis” speeches on Tuesday, metaphorically speaking.

4.01: I listened to The Communist Manifesto on Youtube in which we hear:
4.02: The “Children’s Rights” and the “Bad Parents” speeches,
4.03: The “State Education” speeches,
4.04: The “End of the Family” especially the Marriage Family speeches,
4.05: The “Abolish Countries and Nations” speeches.
4.06: Some 75 years ago, Anatonio Gramsci a Marxist Philosopher concluded that the World Revolutions that Marx & Lenin had predicted were NOT going to happen. He said that Marxists should infiltrate Society’s CULTURAL Institutions and so undermine Society. We see his programme being enforced. How little things change!!!!

5.01: As you know, Augustus the first ACKNOWLEDGED Emperor of Rome, during his 41 Years as Emperor from 27 BC – 14 AD was NEVER tired urging the Roman élite to have children and to stop spending their time having fun with the Girlfriends & Boyfriends. Augustus even had his “Bachelor Tax” to encourage procreation. When Pliny the Younger in 100AD approximately, uses the word ‘burden’ to describe how the Roman élite viewed their 1 child “families” it is estimated that there were some 1,000 Christians from a population of some 60 million in the Roman Empire, both East & West. While the estimated population remained reasonably stable over the next 200 years, the Christians increased to 1 million approximately within 100 years and some 6 million people 10% of the population a century later. One of the reasons for this Christian advance was DEMOGRAPHICS, big families to the rest of us. A second reason, flowing from BIG Families, is an efficient Health Care system. If you come from a LARGE family, it means that you have plenty of relations to help pay for doctors and provide care to the sick people when there was NO Insurance or Government Heath Care System. The Romans, just like the West TODAY, were into their “Whatever-you-want-yourself-Joe/Do NOT Judge me” type of families. When the Plague would strike Roman cities a LOWER proportion of Christians than the GENERAL population died, due to the Communal Christian Health Care system. Additionally Christians searched the streets to find the sick people not unlike Mother Treasa of Calcutta’s nuns today. In addition, Christians taught that we are ALL equal before God. Also Christianity taught people about the After-Life whereas Romans NOT UNLIKE Europe today, believed that we live, we die — Period – Finished – Over.

6.01: I have no doubt that in 100 years time the historians will say that those Churches (Rome & some Reformed Churches) got things a TRILLION percent correct when those Churches said some 50 years ago now, that artificial contraception would lead to an absolute social disaster. Time will prove the statement from Cardinal Hume of Westminster ‘A Contraceptive Mentality inevitably leads to an Abortion Mentality’ to be correct. Time will prove the SUPER-NON-PC statement from a former Archbishop of Dublin, some years ago now, that Planned children are LESS loved than Unplanned Children. We will see artificial Contraception being BANNED and treated like Cocaine today. In 1900 the American Association of Atheists said that by 1950 Christianity would be dead in the USA. This prediction was based on the fact that 42% of College-educated Americans said in the previous Census that they did NOT believe in God. The USA is now the MOST religious Western country. Ah, yes, Time is a GREAT & GLORIOUS Storyteller. I am NOT making a religious point, merely saying that Time has proven the Men in Rome correct.

The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.

From the Mailbox

Today, two things from the mailbox.

From Europia, one of my readers who wishes to remain anonymous believes that the tide will turn, but not in his lifetime:

You may find the following gem of some interest. The Anti-Family/Child Abuse PONZI Scheme Agenda will eventually cause TOTAL Social Collapse as some people have predicted. This will mean the END of the Cradle-to-Grave Western Social Welfare system. In the LONG-TERM Total Social Breakdown, which will make the Economic Mess TODAY look like a toddlers’ playschool tiff, will benefit Society, especially children. This will mean that a GOOD man of 40 – 50 years of age can marry a lady half his age and father 9 children. The young lady of 23 will have NO PROBLEM marrying a man of 35 years of age and having 8 children as HE will have a house & an income to make a family lifestyle practical. On the other hand a woman older than 35 will have great difficulties becoming a mother. We will see a return of LARGE families of 6 – 10 children as people will NEED the children to support the parents in old age. To a certain extent this return of LARGE families has started in Europe. In Portugal a new Pensions’ Law has linked a person’s pension to the number of children that a person had. So the BIGGER the family, the BIGGER the pension you get. I have NO ILLUSIONS that I might see this day. I reckon that Victory is about 40 years away of not firther away. But WHEN Victory comes and come it will, all the TOXIC PARASITES the “Family Court” judges, Legal Aid lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers, etc WILL have to get a job as opposed to profiting from child abuse. We will also see, possibly QUITE soon, people grow their own food as people will be hungry as opposed to any sentimental reasons.

I found the part about the Pension’s Law interesting. I asked the reader about it, but he had only seen it on TV with no other information. If anyone else has more information or a link, that’d be great.

Second, comes a video sent courtesy of former manosphere blogger Will. It’s a video on how conservatism is a myth and a delusion. It’s pretty good:

Everything he say, more or less applies to Canadian conservatism as well.

Holy Crap: Amanda Marcotte the Libertarian

I never thought I’d see this, but Amanda Marcotte, card-carrying feminist working for Slate XX, has just advocated ending the welfare state.

Amanda “examines” (ie. mocks with snark devoid of intellectual substance, as is typical of these kinds of publications) the idea that not having enough people of working age to support those who don’t work is a problem.

But near the end of her post, she veers way the hell off the reservation:

What really galls me about Last’s piece (and most like it) is the underlying assumption that human beings exist to serve society and not the other way around. Oh, sure, Last mentions a few conservative-friendly policy ideas to help people afford kids—such as reducing the number of kids who go to college, attacking Social Security, and pushing people to move to the suburbs—but if reducing day care costs doesn’t do it, there’s no reason to think these tweaks will either. The reader is left with the feeling that the only solution to save capitalism is to clip the wings of half of the population so they can spend more time laying eggs.

I’d argue instead that if the system is set up so that it fails if women don’t start popping out more kids, then it’s a broken system and should be reworked to account for the reality of America today. If women don’t want to have more children, then instead of abandoning women’s equality as a goal, we should rework our economic system so it doesn’t rely on a steadily growing population to function. After all, the point of society is to serve the people in it, not to reduce us to cogs in a machine that serves no one at all.

This reads like libertarian propaganda. You could put this up at Reason to hearty cheers of comradery and brotherhood (all voluntary of course).

First, she argues that human beings do no exist to serve society, rather the opposite. The individualism expressed here would do Rand proud.

I can’t wait until she gets specific and starts decrying forcing individual to pay taxes to feed the machine.

Then she argues that if the current system requires pumping out children to sustain itself, we should reform the system. She is arguing for the end of both SS and Medicare.

If this is the new direction of feminism I approve.

****

Now, I honestly think it’s unlikely that Amanda Marcotte is going to be voting for Gary Johnson next election. I highly doubt she has carefully examined her views and decided that individual freedom was the goal of politics. Rather this is probably just a case Amanda replaces thought with wish.

She probably just saw someone pointing out one of the logical outcomes of one of her life choices and reflexively through out whatever she came to her so she could avoid having to acknowledge that actions (or nonactions in this particular case) have consequences.

It probably never even occurred to her that SS and Medicare depend on an ever-growing population to remain sustainable. It probably never even occurred to her that her desire for “free” stuff (like child care and contraception) from the government forces other people to serve society.

It is almost sad that non-thought like this can be published by a somewhat “respectable” operation.

****

It seems Judgy Bitch found this article as well and posted on it before me. Check it out, it’s a gooder.

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

Sexbots – Redux

Today, SSM had a look at the world of sex dolls and felt both ickiness and sadness. I’m going to talk a bit about it and answer some of her questions. I have already written about the rise of sex dolls* and potential implications here, so check that out first.

Would women have any interest in these whatsoever?

I think no.

I agree; women are generally sexually attracted to dominance and indicators thereof, no sex doll can replicate that. On the other curves of 36-24-36 are not overly complicated to replicate; a pretty face is more complicated, but not insurmountable.

Is sexual activity with a sexbot a sin?  Would it be fornication?  Would it be adultery if the participant is married?  Is there anything in the Bible that would justify condemning the invention or use of sexbots?

It would be neither fornication nor adultery, in itself. On the other hand, it might violate commandments against lust. On the third hand (I’m am mutant), is it lust if it’s not towards an actual woman?

It’s a fairly similar question to masturbation, and whatever your opinion on masturbation should be your opinion on sexbots.

Would it be pedophilia if the sexbot is formed as a child?  Think I’m way off on this last one?

It would be. I think she’s dead on here. As I talked of in my previous post on the subject, illegal and physiologically impossible sex acts are going to be one of the primary drivers of sexbots.

I’ll put it simply, there are more clinical pedophiles out there than there are homosexuals. They can’t sex a real 10-year old (at least not without violating both social taboos and the law), but when they can sex something that looks like a 10-year old without actually injuring a 10-year old, why wouldn’t they?

How do you argue morally against sexual gratification without harm without using religious or socially conservative arguments about the spiritual and/or societal importance of proper sexual relations? Note that the argument for proper sexual relations has been lost for decades, so there is no real societal defence against letting pedophiles get theirs rocks off on toys. In fact, it would probably reduce harm by letting them satiate their perverted lusts on inanimate objects rather than children.

Of course, SSM is not as crooked-thinking and enmeshed in the internet culture as I am, and has not mentioned the potential of sexbots which cry, scream, and resist to satiate the rapists and/or sadists which make up an even larger minority of the population than pedophiles or homosexuals. Then of course there’s sexbots for all the other, weirder and less predominant fetishes out there, which I would suggest SSM not google, such as dickgirls, furries, machina, goo-girls, guro, etc. (Oh why did I ever visit 4chan? Funny memes are assuredly not worth the mind pollution.)

Do people see sexbots as being replacements for actual human life partners?

Some do view it as a replacement for actual human life partners.

Or more accurately, they have been so scarred by negative interactions with women and/or have a keen enough awareness of their own low sexual value that they no longer even desire and/or hope for a normal human relationship with a real women. Instead, they make due with the best alternative.

The better term might be substitute good.

Is that the attraction?

The attraction is simple: for the omega male (and even for the beta male) finding a mate in these times is a grinding, brutal, and confusing process of rejection, mind games, loneliness, shattered hope, hopelessness, boredom, inanity, pettiness, and humiliation. At some point he simply decides it’s not worth it.

A sex doll provides a better than masturbation simulator of the real thing.

If it’s just a sexual thing, why attach a body to it in the first place?

Because it’s a sex thing. Masturbation relieves sexual urges but is lacking a certain something. Sex dolls somewhat close the gap between sex and masturbation; they trick your mind and body (somewhat) into believing you’re with a real woman. The more realistic they get, the better the mind is tricked and the narrower the gap between masturbation and sex.

How would this affect the relationship between men and women?

Once they get realistic enough: poorly.

Relational options for low-attractiveness women would evaporate; why sex a fatty when the sex doll looks better?

A significant portion of omega (and beta) men would leave the sexual/relational market; why waste all the time, pain, and effort required to attract an average looking woman after a decade or two of loneliness, when $3000 get’s you a reasonable facsimile of companionship right now?

Average women will be strongly negatively effected. Sexual/relational options and attention provided by betas/omegas will dry up.

Alpha males and greater betas will make out like bandits, as women becoming more desperate as their options dry up.

Hot women will have their marriage options dry up, but will still be able to get sexual and relational attention from higher status males. Competition from more average women though will decrease their ability to make demands and be bitchy, so they will be forced to be more feminine and nice.

Marriage will become almost solely the domain of the religious. Why would any secular man link up with a woman for life and risk his mental health, property, stability, and freedom on a woman, when woman are so driven to desperation and a sexbot can give a reasonable facsimile of real sex?

Those of you who question if omegas and lower betas would do this, simply lack the understanding of just how brutal the sexual market place is for these folks.

Will we still have any interest in one another?

No idea about women, but a lot of men will stop caring about women. Most women are simply, by male standards, shallow and uninteresting on a friendship level; with sexual desire satiated on demand by plentiful sex (from desperate women and sex dolls) many men will simply stop trying to sift through all the vapid, flaky, emotional, attention-whoring women to find the minority of sane, level-headed, and enjoyable ones; there will no longer be enough incentive to.

If men could choose between an average, real woman and a super-hot fake woman, which would most men prefer?

For the average man, all things being equal, the former, but all things are inherently not equal. An average, real women comes with a lot of costs: the joyless, painful grind of pursuit, rejection, and dating to find her, the emotional costs of living with an emotionally volatile creature, the risk of divorce rape, the risk of her changing and becoming frigid over time, the loss of freedom a real relationship implies, the monetary costs of a relationship, etc.

Even so, I think the majority would prefer the former, if they could get it and the costs were reasonable. Unfortunately for a certain, but unspecific, number of men, they can’t get it or the costs would be unreasonable.

If (probably “when” is a more accurate question) sexbots hit the market, will people buy them?

Absolutely. They will sell well.

MEN: would you buy a sexbot?

As things stand now no. But in the future if the following four conditions are met: my Christian morality fades, my desire for a family fades, they were to get sufficiently realistic looking, and I were to find the costs (material and immaterial) of picking up women too high, I probably would.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to fix marriage?

It would. Let’s see when ending no fault divorce becomes a viable political debate.

****

I think Cail got to the heart of the issue:

“””If you think having sex with an inanimate object seems like it would be dispiriting — well yeah, but jerking off into a kleenex doesn’t exactly make you feel like a king. Honestly, the prospect of cleaning the thing disturbs me more than the idea of having sex with it.

That will be most men will take on the issue. A reall women is best, but if they’re gonna end up masturbating regularly anyways, why not do it better.

Of course, some disagree:

“””With my “no” vote, the poll is back to even. I’m honestly surprised there are that many who would bed a robot, regardless of religious affiliation. It’s a robot.

From my understanding though, Stratton has had a happy marriage from a fairly young age. I would expect this reaction from most men who have never been involuntarily celibate for an extended period of time.

Who uses the bots will depend highly on their success in sexual/relational market in early life. Those men who are successful early and either marry young or have a lot of sex in high school/college, will probably find the idea repulsive. Those who aren’t successful will find the idea more alluring than their hand.

****

* Note: When I talk of sex dolls or sexbots in this post, I am referring to all semi-realistic stand-ins for sex, which would include VR sex, realistic sex dolls, future sexbots, etc.

Americans Deserve to Get What They Want

So, by now most of you have heard Obama won. I’m not American and have been moderately ambivalent about this election; a moderate conservative like Romney is not what America needs at this time.

Despite my ambivalence about which Republicrat won, I think in retrospect this election was very important because of the issues at play and how they were handled. In particular the narrow-minded childishness of it all.

Right now the US is drowning itself in debt, its social security program is unsustainable, entitlement programs are growing and becoming unsustainable, unemployment has been stuck at a high level and the economy is still suffering, the upcoming generation is drowning in student debt and are unable to find gainful employment, one in seven Americans are on food stamps, the fed has a policy of printing $40-billion/month to create inflation, the US is engaged in two wars and a massive assassination program, and Obamacare represented a takeover of a large portion of the economy (along with the attendant side effects). Essentially, America is nearing the end of the process of moving from a (somewhat) free market economy to a broke European cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Whatever side of the issue you fall on (and most of my readers are probably opposed to Europeanization), this is a huge change that deserves debate. Even if you agree that the US is on the right course and should become a European-style welfare state, it is still something that should be debated, voted over, and planned so the US welfare state can become a moderately sustainable one like Germany or the Nordic countries rather than a fiscal disaster like the PIGS.

So, with all these important issues of war, America’s future, the economy, etc. what were the issues that got traction?

Muppets and “binders of women”.

Think about that for a minute: with America’s economic and post-secondary education problems almost literally destroying an entire generation and America’s future in the balance, the issues everybody talked about and that got the most traction were about was a few million dollars of funding for a TV station and whether 30-something women should have to pay for their own contraception.

Really? Fucking really?

What is wrong with you America?

Are you a bunch of fucking children?

****

I’m not exaggerating the muppet thing one bit, but I might be being somewhat unfair on the “war on women” thing, so let’s analyze it a bit more.

The war on women has revolved around the following:

1. Defunding planned parenthood
2. Fluke wanting religious organizations to pay for her contraception
3. State laws restricting abortion access.
4. A few dumbasses saying stupid things about rape.
5. “Binders of women” and the pay gap.

The first and second restrict nothing and are no more a “war on women” than defunding Big Bird is a “war on literacy”. Whatever your opinion on contraception and abortion, paying for your own shit is one of the hallmarks of being a responsible adult. That who funds contraception can even be debated by supposedly “serious” people is proof of the childishness of American politics.

As for the third, it is a major issue but not a presidential or federal one.

I’ll write it clearly so all the idiots on both sides can hear it. I don’t care whether you are pro- or anti-: abortion is no longer a federal issue. The courts have decided and are supported in their decision by enough of the population that no president will be able to restrict abortion no matter how much he may want to. There may be some fights at the margins at the state level, but only at the margins and only at the state level.

Any “war on women” rhetoric saying there are threats to abortion at the federal level are simply fear-mongering. Any anti-abortion activists that are are trying to limit abortion at the federal level are frivolously wasting their time, it would be much more productive to focus on changing the culture than the law. Debating abortion on the federal level is about as relevant as debating abolitionism.

Nothing short of the second coming of Christ is going to result in the banning of abortion in the US at any point in the foreseeable future.

As for the fourth, any group of 535 people will have its share of dumbasses. The opinions of these particular dumbasses matters, but only for their congressional districts. Their idiocy is a local matter. Unless the presidential candidate and/or the party as a whole holds these views on rape (which they have disavowed). It is a non-issue at the presidential level.

The fifth may matter if it exists (although, the existence of an actual gap is empirically dubious). But assuming it does exist, a 17% (or whatever the current number being used is) wage differential pales in economic significance to the other economic woes facing the US. The near doubling of the unemployment rate since 2008 combined with a full 2% of the population dropping from the labour market. The 50% unemployment and underemployment rate of an entire generation. The wage gap may be something to debate at some point in the future, but the overall state of the economy is hurting women much worse than any potential wage differential. Act like adults and shoot the tiger in the living room before fretting over the house cat.

In other words, the entire “war on women” is one big non-issue for a presidential campaign.

****

The most important part of this election was simply the frivolity of it.

Elections have always had mud-slinging, character assassination, and stupid political games, but this election was special. There were/are major obvious structural problems with the US and its economy that need to be addressed (whatever the solution) and this election was fought on none of them.

It was fought on frivolities and non-issues.

Up to this point I have had hope for the Republic. Obama may have been a liberal and won in 2008, but he won for some serious reasons (economic collapse). Bush won in 2004 over a debate over a serious issue (Iraq War). Even in 2000, when the US was running smoothly and the US could afford to debate frivolities, the election was mostly about serious domestic issues.

I had hope that someone the serious issues facing the US over the next few decades would be addressed, if not this election than some other one, because at some level I thought adults were running the establishment.

Even is Obama had won because voters debated over and decided they wanted a European-style social democracy rather than a free republic, I would have held some level of hope for the Republic, because then at least adults (however incorrect they might be) would have been in charge. Then when the failure of social democracy became apparent (as it has in Greece) adults would have been able to pick up the pieces.

But choosing the executive based on a puppet show and who pays for contraception (not even the legality of contraception, but simply who pays) when the US is in the midst of the worst recession in decades and the system is eating an entire generation?

Really?

It seems the US electorate are a bunch of ignorant little children.

At this point I’m just going to say, y’all deserve the decline.

I’m going to enjoy a delicious, steaming cup of schadenfreude watching you suffer over the next decade.

****

Tim had similar thoughts:

We’ve re-elected the president. I hope that those of you who voted for him get what you wanted, good and hard.

****

For your amusement, here’s some other bloggers’ post-election writings in no particular order. Doing it this way will avoid clogging up next week’s Lightning Round with only election stuff.

Jerkonomics
Jack Donovan
Rollo and Mark Minter
Private Man
Freedom 25
Empathological
CMD-N
Sunshine Mary
Ian Ironwood
John Wright
White Sepulchre
The Captain
The Captain Again
Vox
Vox Again
GLP
Neanderpundit
Apocalypse Nowish
An Instapundit Reader

Update: More Post-election Analysis – 2012/11/08

Publius
Bill
Tim (@ Matt Forney)
Carnivore
Simon Grey
Simon Grey Again
A Physician (h/t: Smallest Minority)

Update: A few more – 2012/11/09

Bill Again
Young Hunter
Mangan
Professor Hale
Frank Fleming
James Taranto
Beverly Gage

Update: One last time – 2012/11/13

Jack Donovan again
Suyts (Related, Related)

The Squeeze and the Surrogate Family

I came across this article (h/t: Instapundit) about the squeeze middle-aged folks, particularly women, are under as they are stressed caring for both their children and their aging parents. According to the article, it is supposedly difficult and stressful to care “for both their children and their aging parents while also managing their income-generating jobs and keeping their partners happy–all at the same time.”

To which the only possible response is: no duh.

It is difficult, if not impossible, because nobody was ever meant to do all that at once. People simply do not have the time and energy to deal with children, old people, a career, and other activities at the same time.

Traditionally, there have always been societal and biological mechanisms to deal with this, but, over the last few decades, we’ve decided to spit in the face of both.

Throughout history, these mechanisms have varied. Tribal structures, villages, and the like made raising children and taking care of old people a community thing for most people. Combined with the typical “low” age of average death, “early” child-bearing ages, and large families things mostly worked themselves out.

When people started living longer and tribal and community ties began to die due to the mass dislocations caused by industrialization and urbanization, society adapted by adopting what we now know of as the traditional nuclear family in the early 20th century. Combined with some help from local churches and community organizations this worked fairly well, reaching its apex in the decades following war boom.

In the nuclear family model, the family adopts a division of labour to help the running of the household. The husband works and the wife takes care of the family. Families have many kids and they have them at a young age, so when they get old, the children can care for their parents.

Given the realities of modern, mass society, this structure works.

Having children young (in your late teens/early 20s) provided future children to take care of you and makes it so that by the time you need to take care of your elders, your children are already nearing self-sufficiency. It means that you have your youthful vigor to raise your children when you need. (Did you ever think of why you are able to go with minimal and erratic sleep when you’re young? It’s because it lets you physically handle the realities of a squalling infant unable to tell time. You are not built to naturally be able to take care of young children in your 30s and 40s, you lose the vigor necessary to do so as you age.)

Having lots of children meant that there would be enough people to take care of you when you aged without it being an undue burden on any single child.

Having the wife stay home provided the family with a person who had the time to take care of the children. She had time to take care of elderly relatives. She had the time to take care of sick family members.

There was no generational squeeze, because the division of labour and proper family planning inherent in the nuclear family model gave each individual only what they could actually handle and there was no undue burden on any single family member.

****

When feminists, and others, criticize the “housewife”, they miss the importance the housewife has for modern, mass society. Absent the traditional bonds of tribe and villages, anomie was destroying people in an urbanized, industrial environment.The development of the housewife held this back.

The housewife may not contribute to “GDP” but she contributes something just as important, she socially bonds the family together and bonds the family to the rest of the community. She has time to take care of dependent family members. She has time to develop meaningful relationships in the neigbourhood and the family’s social circle. She had time to support local organizations and by taking care of the household, she gave the husband time to support them.

The bread-winning husband is economically productive, while the housewife is socially productive.

In a modern, urban society, social productivity is as essential to the health of society as economic productivity, as the natural social relations and community of a tribal or village lifestyle simply do not exist. But building community takes time, something people working full-time, while taking care of children, simply do not have. The housewife had this time.

She has time to get to get to know Edna down the street and develop a meaningful relationship, which would then transfer into a meaningful family relationship, building community. If Edna’s husband, Bill broke his leg and couldn’t work, her neighbour, the housewife, would have the time to comfort them; she would prepare meals, look after Edna’s children, provide emotional support, run errands, etc., which she was able to do because she had time. She would know that Edna would do the same if something happened to her family.

The housewife would build community where community did not naturally exist.

****

But, some sections of society (read: leftists and feminists) were unhappy with this adaptation to modern society and set out to destroy it.

The traditional, nuclear family was “oppressive” and being a housewife was unfulfilling, so patriarchy had to be destroyed. (Because working 40 hours in a dead-end office job simply to expand your ability to mindlessly consume was somehow more fulfilling than meaningful community).

And destroyed it was.

People started getting married later, had children later, and had fewer children overall. Family became less important.

The housewife was replaced by a second provider. The traditional family replaced by the broken family. Social productivity was exchanged for economic productivity, with little real benefit.

The result: anomie.

The social capital the traditional family, particularly the housewife, created began to disappear. As Robert Putnam has documented this decline in social capital and social trust. As one example, over the last 25 years the average adult has gone from having 3 friends to having only 2; half of all adults have one or fewer real friends.

The squeeze occurred, as no one is able to work full-time, raise children, care for elders, and develop community. There is simply not enough time in the day and peopel simply do not have that much energy.

****

So, how was the squeeze handled?

The traditional family was replaced by the broken family and the surrogate family.

The broken family lost the husband and father. Of course, raising a child, while also providing for this family is brutally hard work, almost impossible. So, the husband and father the broken family did not have was replaced by the state, which became a surrogate husband and father. The state would offer provision through welfare, mandated leave, tax breaks, funded child care, public health care, and a wide array of other benefits.

The housewife was working and could no longer raise her children. Instead, families gave them to a surrogate mother: subsidized daycare and the public school system.

The housewife no longer had the time to take care of elderly or ill relatives and the relatives had forgone having enough children. The work of supporting them became overly onerous, it simply was impossible. So, families entrusted their elderly and ill to a surrogate child, the state. Social security, subsidized senior housing, public health care, and a wide array of government benefits replaced the family.

****

The problem with using the state as a surrogate family is twofold.

First, the state can only provide bread, but man does not live on bread alone. People need community, friends, family, and social interaction. The state is incapable of providing this; it is a cold, faceless, bureaucratic institution. The best it can do is hire a paid nurse or teacher to tolerate your company for a few hours.

The state can not build community. It can only replace community with economic transaction or destroy it.

The state can not end the squeeze, as personal relations are still necessary for the elderly, the infirm, children, and the building of community. It may alleviate is somewhat, but the squeeze remains.

Second, is the cost. The state’s coffers are not bottomless and when the benefits of social capital that were previously built by unpaid labour, now has to be built by labour paid by the state, the costs become onerous.

The state goes broke.

Greece is experiencing it. Other part of Europe will experience it soon. North America will experience it in time if her course does not reverse.

When the state goes broke, it can no longer replace community, but people have lost the community to replace the state. There can only be a void, with people left to their own devices. Those unable to repair community or provide for themselves suffer.

Without the traditional family, the squeeze is unavoidable.

****

The traditional family, particularly the housewife, was essential to building community. The state as a surrogate family has replaced the traditional family. Mindless economic production and consumerism replaced community. The bureaucratic state expanded and replaced community.

For what benefit? A squeeze on the middle, a dubious increase in material well-being, and the end to an amorphous concept of oppression.

I hope those who did this feel it was worth it. Do you think it was?