Tag Archives: Patriarchy

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

Advertisements

Chivalry, the Lady, and the Old Order

Some chick at the Atlantic is asking for chivalry to come back. As is standard is many modern pro-chivalry arguments, she is talking only of men treating women as special, not about women’s corresponding duties under chivalry.

At one point in the article she asks:

Feminists want men to treat women as equals; traditionalists want men to treat women like ladies. Are the two mutually exclusive?

She then goes on about some stupidity about respect and civility.

The simple answer though is yes.

Chivalry and equality are not and can not exist simultaneously.

Chivalry is based in a hierarchical world-view and can not be separated from that worldview.

Chivalry is far more than simple respect and civility. Chivalry is a code whereby the stronger and superior man (the knight) extends his strength and protection to his inferiors who were too weak to protect themselves (women and children).*

In the chivalric hierarchy knights were strong protectors, women were weak and in need of protection. Inherent inequality is built into chivalry.

In exchange for this protection, women submitted to men and acted like ladies. They complemented the men’s strength.

Chivalry rested on this traditional order of society, where inequality and feminine submission is an accepted fact of life. Without this old order, chivalry is impossible.

****

Besides inherent inequality, chivalry also requires on other thing: that women act like ladies.

If either of those two conditions is broken then chivalry can not exist. Any acts you do to be “chivalrous” are nothing more than chumphood and supplication.

A lady was originally a noblewomen. Over time, in romantic chivalry it came to refer to a virtuous women. Nowadays, its usually used as somewhat more polite/formal term for women. Only ladies deserve gentlemen, a term with similar origins and complementary meanings as that of lady.

Fundamental to the conception of both the lady and the gentleman is the concept of honour. A man’s honour in the romantic realm was found in his protection of and graciousness towards women. A women’s honour was found in her chastity and her graciousness towards men.

We already know how a gentleman acts; we call it chivalry. So, I will not go further into his duties. But how does a lady act?

A lady is chaste; she does not slut it up, she does not dress like a cheap hooker, she does not tease, and her flirting is light, discrete, and indirect. A lady does not compete with men. A lady acts with propriety and decorum; she is gentle, polite, well-mannered. A lady is feminine, she knows her nature and acts according to it. A lady is beautiful; she knows that her natural god-given beauty is a delight for the rest of the world, so she seeks to maintain it rather than destroy it. A woman who acts this way is deserving of chivalry.

Chivalry is for ladies. It is not for modern, independent women.

****

Women, you have a choice.

You can like ladies and accept either inequality or submission or you can cast these off.

If you decide to act like ladies, men can act like gentleman and be chivalrous in return.

If you decide to act like modern, independent women, then you have made the choice to reject chivalry. If you ask for men to be chivalrous, all you are asking for is unearned privilege. You sound like a spoiled brat.

If you do not hold up your end of the chivalric bargain, why the hell should men be expected to hold up their end?

Do not ask for or expect chivalry; in fact, you should be repulsed by chivalry.

Enjoy your hook-ups.

****

At this point some may be wondering if I am anti-chivalry. The answer to that is no, I am very pro-chivalry.

But chivalry exists as a part of the old order. Apart from that old order it is meaningless.

I am pro-chivalry, because I believe in resurrecting that old order. Within that old order, chivalry is a wonderful thing for both men and women. Outside that order, it is nothing.

As long as the old order remains buried, no male has a general duty of duty towards women.

In fact, every male should refuse to extend chivalry to a modern, equal, independent woman.

****

If you are thinking of being chivalrous ask yourself three questions:

1) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous think she is my equal?
2) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous to think a women’s place is to submit to a man?**
3) Does this women I am about to be chivalrous comport herself as a lady?

If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, treat her as the equal she believes herself to be. (If you do not know the answer, use social cues to determine the likely answer).

Do not give her chivalry. Do not hold the door open for her. Do not pay for her. Do not fight for her. Do not die for her.

As well, I would suggest not marrying her, but that’s an argument distinct from chivalry.

To give chivalry to any women who believes she is equal to you is to insult her. Chivalry implies and necessitates inferiority; by giving it to her you are telling her she is either inferior to or in submission to you. Given her stance on equality this should be repugnant to her.

Any women who believes they are equal yet demands chivalry is either insulting herself, selfish, or just plain stupid. Refuse to play into her stupidity.

Respect a women who thinks she’s your equal by treating her like an equal.

If the answer to the third question is no, then she is not a lady and not worthy of knightly protection. Do not waste yourself on her.

If a women acts like a lady, and believes in either male superiority or complementarianism, then be chivalrous. She is submitting to you, your protection, and your providence and is deserving of having it provided to her. Do not fail her.

****

* The worldview of the chivalric code was also based on militarism, fuedalism, and Christianity. From these flowed other parts to the code such as knightly honour, duties to countrymen/Christians, and duties to God, which are also intrinsic to the code, but these aspects are not what most discuss when talking of chivalry nowadays. For this particular post, chivalry will refer only to knightly duties to women as distinct from the other parts of the code, unless otherwise stated. I’m not sure if it is possible for the part of the code dealing with knightly duties to women can be separated from the rest of the code and remain logically coherent, but in practice it has been, so I will assume for this post that it can be.

** This second question allows for complementarians/first mates who may hold to metaphysical equality, but not practical equality. I would argue that practical inequality is all that is fully necessary for chivalry to be extended, so complementarians and first mates should be provided with the protection of chivalry. But I could see where it could be debatable to hold metaphysical inequality as being necessary for chivalry; in which case you would withhold chivalry from most complementarians/first mates.


Baby Rabies and a Traditional Wife

I’ve talked of finding a good wife and mother before and the blessings of having many children. One of the things I talked about was finding a women who wanted children and as good with children.

The simple fact is that if you are to be a patriarch, finding a wife who wants a full quiver is essential.

Despite the grinding, remorseless slog that is online dating, I still have a couple profiles, and invest a minimal amount of time in them (about once or twice a week I login, check who’s new within my parameters, and send a short message or two if anyone’s interesting).

Like most men, I do most of the primary messaging, but I do get a small amount of messages (about one every month or two) from women who I did not contact beforehand. The women who send me unsolicited messages always came in one of two categories:

  1. She is overweight/unattractive and reeking of desperation. Often women in this group don’t even seem to have read my profile. (Hint: If a guy says he is looking for a Christian wife and wants lots of children, he will not respond positively to messages from an atheist who doesn’t want marriage or children. Exception: She is offering very easy sex, in which case he might be tempted into entertaining thoughts of carnal sin).
  2. She is in her late-20s or early-30s (ie. older than me) and her profile shows her as being very interested in having children.

After initially trying to be polite by replying to these, I’ve since stopped replying to both groups after a bad experience where some polite responses to a girl I was not interested in broke down into receiving lengthy hysterical messages outlining how awesome she thought she was, along with an extended detailing of her life story after I declined her advances.

Anyhow, moving away from my digressions, the second group is what I am going to write about today.

Before I dipped my toe into the manosphere, I wondered about these women. They often seemed as desperate as the overweight women, but there didn’t seem to be any reason for it. They were fairly physically unattractive for their age and didn’t seem to have anything in their profiles that would obviously disqualify them from finding a decent man. Yet, here they were, hitting on a much younger guy, with an obvious tinge of desperation in their profiles and messages (even in my blue-pill days I was cognizant enough to know women generally preferred older men and vice versa).

I wondered why, if they were so family-oriented and wanted children so very much, they were unmarried in their late-20s or early-30s when there wasn’t any reason they shouldn’t have been able to find a decent husband much earlier.

Reading the manosphere, I’ve since realized that these women are suffering from what is often derogatorily referred to as “baby rabies”. They have lived it up in their 20s, are now hitting the wall and realizing their fertility is waning, and are desperate to get a bun in the oven before it’s too late.

(I will continue to use the term baby rabies, despite it’s moderately derogatory nature, as I can not remember another simple term for this phenomenon while writing this post).

****

So, these women suffering baby rabies are loudly proclaiming how family-oriented they are and it is very apparent how much they desire to have children.

For the MTGOW or PUA, the obvious response to the desperation of these past-their-prime women is either ignore it or take advantage of it, respectively, but how should the patriarch-to-be* respond this kind of women, when her stated goals so closely align with his own?

The same as the MGTOW’s: ignore them.

There is a fundamental difference between a traditional women looking to raise a large family and a women in the grip of baby rabies.

A traditional women will plan her life around her desire to have children; raising and maintaining a family will have always been a priority for her. She will have prepared herself for this goal and learned the virtues necessary to meet this goal.

On the other hand, a women in the grip of baby rabies has not made raising a family a priority. She is merely responding to an emotional impetus pushed on her by her changing hormones and has not prepared herself for the demanding task of raising children.

There is a fundamental difference between a women whose goal is to be a wife and mother and a women who is experiencing baby rabies.

Do not mistake the two.

****

The question then becomes, how does a young man distinguish the two?

The most obvious and easiest to observe answer is age.

A women in her late-teens/early-20s who is desiring a husband and large family is very unlikely to be in the baby rabies stage; assuming she meets the other requirements you should have for the mother of your future children.

On the other hand, a women in her 30’s(or older) has very obviously not made raising a family a priority, otherwise she would already be married and raising children. If you want to be a patriarch, do not marry a women this old, whatever her potential virtues, she does not have the same goals as you.

****

Now, you may have noticed I didn’t include women aged 25-29. That’s because these women are not so cut and dry.

They aren’t as obviously in the throes of baby rabies as older women, but at that age, you wonder why, if a family is of such a priority to them, they have waited until past their prime fertility to get serious about marriage.

I would say to generally avoid them, but would not categorically reject a woman in that age range as I would those in one in her 30s. If they have enough other virtues and their reason for not getting married earlier is not silly, they may be worth considering.

But be cautious, use your judgment.

****

Now, some may raise objections to my eliminating women in their 30s out of hand and advising against women in their late 20s, but the patriarch is looking for a particular type of women, one for whom marriage and children are a high priority.

A women who waits until her late-20s or 30s to pursue marriage has amply demonstrated that marriage and children are not a high priority for her.

What of her education and career?

A bachelors can be achieved by the age of 21, so that’s not really an excuse.

Even if it was, a women who pursues an education and career above a marriage and family, self-evidently puts the former as a higher priority.

That’s fine, it’s her choice, but it does mean that she is not a good candidate for a patriarch looking for wife whose highest priority is family.

But what if she didn’t have the opportunity to marry?
What if she couldn’t find a good man?

She did have opportunity; she didn’t take it. She did find a good man, she rejected him.

Women have a lot of options of the marriage market when they are young; most men would be surprised (and jealous) of how many they do have. Even a woman with below average marriage market value will have far more opportunities to pursue marriage handed to her with minimal effort than even the highest value men will get through huge outlays of effort.

You average women will have met a large number of decent guys throughout her late-teens or early-20s. If she has not married one of them that shows that she either:

  1. Puts a low priority on marriage and children, in which case she is not what a patriarch is looking for.
  2. Had some flaws that were strong enough that no other decent man  pursue he and propose to her, in which case sound judgment would warn any other man to avoid her.
  3. Has far too unrealistic standards of her husband. Anybody who marries her will not be able to live up to them (that includes you, you’re not special), setting the stage for a bad marriage.
  4. She has been open to many suitors and either dated a large number of them or simply had one or two long-term relationships that went nowhere. She didn’t end up marrying them because, for whatever reason, none of the men she dated were of sufficient quality for marriage. In this case, she has shown that she has a history of poor choices regarding the type of men she has allowed into her life. These poor choices shows that she has poor judgment in men, which likely means poor judgment in other areas of life. Poor judgment is not something any patriarch should want to attach themselves to. (Either that or see #3;they were of sufficient quality, she just had unrealistic standards).

A women who is still single by her late-20s is simply not the kind of women any patriarch should be looking to marry. She may be a good women, but she is not the type of women a patriarch should choose.

****

Even if we assume that, somehow, her failure to be married and raising children already are not due to her own choices, there are other considerations that are simply unavoidable at that age.

There is, of course, the biological fact that a women in her 30s is rapidly losing her fertility and there likely won’t be enough time to raise a large family before infertility and/or a high risk of mutation strikes. Even for a women in her late 20s: if you take the time to court her (say a year), then have a child every two years, you’re approaching her 40s by the time you get to child five, which is a bit late to be having children. The amount of children you will be able to have will be limited.

As well, simply living independently for a decade or so following high school/college is itself a problem. By that time, a women will have adapted to her situation as an independent, single adult with little responsibility. Re-adapting back to the interdependence of a marriage will likely present a challenge for her (and her husband). In addition, adapting to the responsibility of a child (let alone many children) at that age following so many years of a lack of responsibility may prove problematic.

****

What of men in their 30s; should young women looking for a patriarch avoid them? It’s kind of sexist to have a double standards.

First, I am writing for young men, not for women and am focusing on what young men should concentrate on. Women have their own things to look for, which I might write about at another time, but this post is not aimed at them.

Second, it’s not a double standard, it’s two different standards. Men and women have different priorities for potential mates. Stop trying to force women’s priorities on men.

Third, a man has not likely had the same opportunities as a women for marriage. As the pursuers in the marriage market place, men do not have the same overwhelming array of options handed to tham from which to choose that women do. They have to work very hard simply to have a small fraction of the options open to your average young woman. (Take heart young man, the situation reverses itself sometime in your 30s). He may have pursued many women who he thought might make good potential wives, without being overly picky, and been shot down by all.

As well, his fertility will last him well into middle/old age, so that worry is off the table.

That being said, there are a couple problems a young women might face with a man in his 30s (or older). He may be approaching the age where his children may be at higher risk of mutation. Also, he has likely gotten used to living independently, just as women have, and will face the same problems settling down.

****

Age by itself is not a perfect guide. For a younger women, rather than being a traditional women wanting to be a patriarch’s helpmeet, she may simply be a gold-digger or someone who believes raising children and being dependent is easier than working. I’m not going to get into that at this time, but will give you this link (which I’ve already used thrice above; read it is essential to this post) once again.

Other things you can look for two distinguish between the two:

  1. Desperation: A traditional women will be looking for a husband, but in a calm, sensible manner. A women with baby rabies will have a tinge of desperation to her.
  2. Singular Focus: Is she focusing on the marriage, you, and children more or less equally, or does her primary focus seem to be having children, while marriage and her potential partner seem secondary?
  3. Particularity: Related to that, does she want your children (or at least a good man’s children) or does she not seem to very selective about who fathers her children?
  4. Preparedness: Has she prepared herself to be a good wife and mother (see previous link) or does she seem to just be acting impulsively?
  5. Timing: Has she always wanted to be a mother, or is this something that just recently appeared for no good reason?
  6. Number: Does she want just one designer baby to fulfill her itch or is she looking to raise a whole family?

That’s probably not a complete list; I’m sure others will have things I missed in the comments. The thing is to recognize that there are potential pitfalls and that just because she says she’s family-oriented and wants children does not necessarily make it so. Use your judgment and consider things rationally to come to the choice that fits your life goals.

****

Just to head off some objections I’m sure will come up.

Aren’t you being judgmental?

Why, yes I am. Thank you for noticing.

Anybody who is not extremely judgmental in choosing the person to whom they are swearing a solemn oath before God, the state, and their family to spend the rest of their lives with is a fool. Anybody who is not even more extremely judgmental in choosing the woman who will be the mother of their his children is an abject fool.

This goes for women as well. If you aren’t extremely judgmental about the kind of man you consider marrying and fathering your children, you are a fool.

This is not to say young men and women should make a large list of stupid superficial requirements for potential mates. Use your reason. Judge on the important things: loyalty, reliability, judgment, shared values, work ethic, shared morality, religion, family attitudes, sexual attractiveness, etc., while being forgiving on the superficial/small things.

This is probably the most important earthly decision you will make in your life. Do not be too compromising.

Aren’t you being unfair about *******? What of *******? Isn’t ******* an exception?

Life’s unfair. Get used to it.

Also, NAWALT, I know.

I am giving young men some rules of thumb to help them make the best decision they can. It is up to them to apply them using their own discretion and judgment.

Rather than whining about how others are unfair and judgmental and how you deserve something just because, look at your own choices and try to change them so you are best able to achieve your goals.

If having a family is important to you, make choices that reflect their importance.

You’re an asshole.

Probably, but that’s irrelevant.

****

Despite my prior dismissal of exceptions, I will note one.

There is the rare exception of the early widow. A women who married (or was engaged) young and was a loyal, loving wife (or fiance), but whose husband (or husband-to-be) died tragically early, is a special circumstance. A widow will likely come with some extra emotional needs (and possibly previous children), but if you are willing and able to comfort and emotionally support her (and raise her children), she could make an excellent wife for the young future patriarch (assuming she meets the other basic requirements you should have).

A faithful widow would also probably make an ideal marriage candidate for an older widower or man who’s been cheated on and/or abandoned by his wife. All things being equal, she would likely would be a much better potential wife (and mother) than either a divorcee or a women who has put off marriage to much later in her life.

Consider it. Think of the example of Ruth and Boaz.

****

* All of the above advice is written particularly for young men in their 20s/early-30s looking to become patriarchs, but anyone else looking to marry should take heed.

****

This post inspired by (h/t: M3):


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?


The Bookshelf: Red Pill Reformation

On the Bookshelf today is Red Pill Reformation by MTE. He goes by Rock Throwing Peasant in the comment sections around the manosphere, and his blog is on my blog roll. When I heard he wrote a book on the Christian Red Pill, I was intrigued. I’ve been busy lately, so it’s taken me a while to get around to reading it, but here’s my review (finally).

First, the book is fairly short, about 50 pages, with an additional 30 pages of an action plan, but it’s fairly priced at only $2.99. It’s good value for money.

As for the writing style, it’s very straightforward, basic, and to the point. Occasionally, I find the writing  can sometimes be “choppy”, but overall it reads easy, almost conversationally. He communicates his ideas effectively and functionally.

After a short introduction, the book starts with the typical beta narrative men are sold and contrasts that with the red pill of evolutionary psychology. He outlays the standard analysis of both quite well. There’s nothing new, but its a solid introduction.

I did have one little quibble; he defines hypergamy thus:

It is the innate desire of a woman to pair bond (not necessarily a relationship) with a man of higher value. In layman’s terms, think of the term, “marrying up.” Women who rate a 6 on the 1-10 scale don’t want to mate with a male 6. They want 7-10. They may marry a 5 or 6. They may have sex with a 5 or 6, but they want the 7-10. When their basic needs are met, there is little else on earth that will stop them from spending waking hours thinking about that bartender.

I don’t think he quite gets it right. Wanting to marry a higher quality mate is not exclusive to women’ men want to marry a women above their “number” as well. Hypergamy is a women’s desire for a man who more socially dominant (whether by money, fame, occupation, education, or whatever), while men desire women based primarily on looks and a pleasant personality. It’s not that women necessarily want a man with a “higher number” (although they do) that makes them hypergamous, it’s what they base the number on that does. This is a minor point, he does get the basics of hypergamy right, I just think it was a bit oversimplified and he should have explicated it a bit. The rest is of these section is good, if fairly basic for manosphere writing.

He follows with an excellent section on feminism. It provides an excellent overview of the negative effects of feminism. There’s some stuff included here I didn’t know before. I liked it.

In the next section he lays out the basics of game. Overall, he has a good general overview of the topic. Enough information to ge the basic concept without getting bogged down in detail.

I do have one criticism, the author misuses the term preselection. He writes, “Pre-selection is a female’s natural tendency to subconsciously disqualify 90% of all men she meets from any possibility of romance (carnal or other).” While women will disqualify most men, pre-selection is generally used to refer to a woman selecting a man (or not) based on how she perceives other women value that man.

At the end of the game section, he discusses the morality of game for seduction and how he rejects its use because it removes the moral component of human interaction.

He follows with two good sections on Churchianity and Marriage 2.0. These were solid introductions to the concepts.

He follows in a few sections reconciling manosphere concepts to being a Christian husband, resulting in a patriarch. In essence, he comes to the conclusion that a man is ordained by God to actively and courageously lead his home towards a goal. A good conclusion.

These first sections were the lead-up to the last 3 section which make up the bulk of the piece. These 3 sections go into detail about how to be a patriarch.

The first called “A Family of Disciples” is a practical guide to discipling your family. This will mean nothing to the non-Christians, but if you’re a Christian patriarch, it’s good advice.

The second of these sections is about developing the characteristics of “Integrity, Rational thought, Self-Awareness, Charisma, Confidence, Effective communication, Assertiveness, Optimism, and Physical Appearance.” These characteristics are developed from where game principles and Christian virtue meet. He lays out clearly why you should develop them and gives some advice on how to develop them. It is very well done and the advice is good.

The final section is called “Game and Love” and is more theoretical in nature. Here the author discusses how principles of game and of Christ interact. What I think is the essential point of the section: “God knows the heart of women and has told and shown men how to lead them. Game proponents observed God’s Way and penned the term, “game,” to give a pagan version of it.”

Rock Throwing Peasant ends the book with a 30-Day Action Plan. Everything on this list is good stuff to do/practice, although, a good portion of it is very much focused on Christians and/or the married, so if you aren’t either, fair amounts of the plan may not apply to you. For the married or to-be-married Christian, it is excellent stuf, but it is a lot of stuff. Some of it is fairly easy to do in a single day, but much of it is long-term habits to work on. If you tried to start all of it on it’s recommended day in the month, you’d likely experience willpower depletion. I would recommend practicing everything in the plan, it’s a good plan, but maybe, slow it down a bit. For the developing the larger, long-term habits, implement a new one each week or two.

Overall, the book got better as I read more. It started out a little shaky and there were some theoretical points on game that I think were mistaken. This made me skeptical at first, but the deeper into it I got, the more impressed I became. This is a great book.

It is very much geared towards the married or to-be-married Christian, so its use for those not in this category may be limited. For the red pill aware Christian, this book does a good job of sorting out the relationship between the red pill and Christian virtue, and how to develop yourself into a patriarch.

Recommendation:

This is a great book for its purpose.

If you are a married Christian or a Christian looking to be married: Buy this book. It’s an excellent guide to becoming a patriarch and exerting your leadership in your family.

If you are non-Christian and are married or looking to be married, this book is solid, and I’d recommend it, but it is based heavily upon Christian thought. You would benefit, but not as fully as a Christian would. You’d likely get more from reading Athol’s Primer; read that first, then, if you want more, pick this up. It’s definitely worth its price.

If you are not a Christian and do not plan to get married, I don’t see this book helping you very much. It’s probably not something to put high on your priority list. If you have a theoretical interest in the topic or want to develop yourself through the action plan (although,30 Days of Discipline may be more to your liking), for the price and length, its not too much of an investment if it doesn’t pan out.

If you know a young Christian male you want to introduce the red pill to, Red Pill Reformation would be an excellent place to start. Despite a couple of small quibbles about his theory of game, this book will get him thinking about the red pill, without the immediate negative reaction he might have towards material oriented towards players.


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.

What is to be done?

Aurini writes:

I am a Patriot.  During my life I hope to actually see the True North Strong and Free – not just sing it in the National Anthem.  To find a wife and raise a family, with hope for a future.  Gaming girls in foreign countries is better than marital theft, certainly – and it’s probably a fair bit better than Heroin – but it doesn’t leave much of a Legacy.

Running away will protect us for a time, but the Enemies of Life are implacable; this is a global ideology more infectious than proselytizing Christianity could ever hope to be.  It’ll reach Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia sooner than you think – only by the time it gets there it won’t be called Feminism any more.  Like the common cold, this virus mutates fast.

The MRM fell because it was premised upon weakness.  Any true hope for the future will have to be premised upon Strength.

I agree fully.

But that leaves the questions of what is to be done. How can we destroy the system that is destroying us?

How can we avoid the Bonobo Masturbation Society?

****

The options we have:

1) The Blue Pill: Play along with the system.

2) MRM: Fight the current legal system for equal rights from within the system.

3) Game/MGTOW: These options are essentially the same: retreat. You withdraw from the system.

4) Patriarchy: This is outwardly similar to the blue pill, with all the attendant risks, but is done intentionally with red pill frame and knowledge,  rather than leaped into blindly.

5) Violence: Overthrow the current system with violent revolution.

****

The blue pill may work. For you, for now. But you could always wind up on the wrong end of the divorce or economic statistics with one bad week, and it leaves the system intact. This is no fight at all.

MRM may make the legal system more fair, but that’s all it will do. It will make divorce sting less, it will remove affirmative action to allow fair employment competitions, and it may do some other good things, but it is still based on progressive ideas of equality, fairness, human rights, social justice, and all that jazz and is still corrupt. In the long run it merely preserves the corrupt system, but blunts its edges, reducing consciousness, fixing the system further in place.

Game/MGTOW may work. For you, for now. But it is retreat; it is conceding that the system wins and hoping that if you either avoid or succeed at playing by the new rules of the system it might not eat you. You might avoid family court, unemployment, or unhappy marriage,  but you are still a Bonobo happily masturbating away, enjoying yourself to avoid thinking if there isn’t something more fulfilling out there.

Violence won’t work. Right now the system is not corrupt enough to get enough people fired up for violence. In addition, the anti-progressive movement is small and is like herding bulls. There would be no way to win. Starting violence would turn the decline into a collapse and most revolutions end up eating their own children. Small scale violence accomplishes nothing except making the violent person’s ideology look bad. Violence should be avoided.

That leave patriarchy as the only hope.

****

So how does patriarchy help us win?

We must realize that any fight against the current progressivist system will take time, possibly generations. The war against progressivism is a war of ideology and ideas; changing the dominant paradigm is (usually) a slow process. It took progressivism and feminism over a century to bring our country to this point. It will take just as long to bring it back.

So, that leaves us with two things we must do: push our ideas and develop our ideology and breed the next generation.

First, we need to develop our ideas and put them out there; we must push the overton window. We have to put red pill knowledge out there, make it acceptable, and bring people to the cause. This is already being done; you can occasionally see red pill knowledge creep into the MSM. The manosphere is great for this.

More importantly to pushing our ideas, we have to live lives that are enviable. Ideas are great, but unless people see what’s in it for them, ideas alone will not suffice. We have to demonstrate what we are arguing for.

Live a red pill life that others are envious off and want to emulate. Praxis.

Second, breeding. The future of our society is determined by the next generation, so we need to create the next generation. On one hand, we have an advantage because progressivists are breeding themselves out of existence. On the other hand, if we all go MTGOW or PUA, then we aren’t breeding either.

So, marry a good women, have lots of kids, and raise them traditionally. Your life will be better, your life will be full and meaningful, and you’ll have a legacy you can be proud of.

Make sure to avoid a few pitfalls. Refuse to marry those who aren’t worthy of bearing your children (no rings for sluts). Be wary of the public school system; make sure to raise your kids right. Live as an example you want your kids to emulate.

Creating the next generation and developing our ideas is how an ideological war is won. So, do it.

****

That’s not to say game and MGTOW don’t help some. Both spread red pill ideas. In addition, PUA’s make promiscuity rougher and less fair, thus making promiscuity, already unattractive, less attractive for females. Both reduce the amount of marriageable men who will “man up”, leaving women asking “where did all the men go”, showing the corruption of the “sacred path for marriage”.

While they’re still acting the part of bonobos, they do have some positive impact in the ideological war.


The Bookshelf: The Way of Men

The first book I read on my trip was Jack Donovan’s The Way of Man.

The book is a theoretical discussion about manhood and what defines a masculinity. In terms of writing style, the book is written in an engaging and clear manner. It reads well and communicates effectively without slowing down as theoretical books are often wont to do. It is an enjoyable read.

The first couple chapters  introduce the concept that “the way of men is the way of the gang”. Essentially, masculinity is defined through a man’s interactions within a small group of other men gathered together for resource acquisition and mutual security. Essentially, manliness was defined by man’s position in a small war band or hunting party.

From there he describes the four tactical virtues men that defines a man’s worthiness as a man within his gang: Strength, Courage, Mastery and Honour. He makes an excellent case for these virtues being the defining traits of masculinity and I would agree with him on his chosen traits. They represent what I’ve noticed masculinity is generally defined by.

After a discussion of the virtues, he writes of how “being good at being a man” differs from “being a good man”. The four tactical virtues are the virtues that define masculinity, on who demonstrates these virtues is good at being a man. Other virtues (piety, charity, temperance, righteousness, etc.) may make a man good, but do not necessarily make a man good at being a man. (I like the implicit acceptance of virtue ethics by this book).

This distinction is important and brings this book far above most other writings I’ve read on masculinity, which usually conflate being a man with the author’s own personal morality, often to results that don’t quite sit right. Christian writings on masculinity often conflate Christian morality for males with masculinity,excluding obviously masculine men who might not follow Christian morality from being a man. Game advocates often define masculinity through a male’s attractiveness to women making masculinity dependent on female approval and implicitly denying the masculinity of men who aren’t superficially psycho-socially dominant. Society as a whole usually either defines masculinity through anti-social thuggery, reducing masculinity to nothing more than the gratification of base urges and denying the masculinity of men dedicated to higher values, or the approved beta life path, making masculinity dependent on providing for women and denying the masculinity of those who don’t “man up”. It’s good to have someone define masculinity in a neutral way apart from the moral preconceptions of the author.

He then discusses the way of the gang in relation to civilization for a few chapters, with a chapter focusing on Rome in particular. As society becomes more civilized and peaceful the need for gangs decreases, so men  redirect their gang activities into simulated (ex. playing sports or games), vicarious (ex. watching sports or war movies), or intellectual masculine (ex. economic or political competition). Men will be content in civilization as long he has sufficient redirection for gang activities, but increasingly our society is limiting men’s opportunities for participation in masculine activities.

He illustrates with a comparison of the Way of Women and the Way of Men through a comparison of  Bonobo and Chimpanzee society, respectively. If men become too decadent and their opportunities for gang activities too few, civilization will become a “Bonobo Masturbation Society” where meaning and purpose are replaced by “fun”.

These chapters are excellent at explaining why men are in a crisis of meaning in our modern society despite being more prosperous than ever.

The last few chapters summarize the consequences of the previous discussions. Men have to choose whether to have civilization with access to a meaningless world of pleasure and fun, the Bonobo Masturbation Society, or a more meaningful society of the Way of Men. He discusses how reasserting the Way of Men is impossible in a democratic society and requires the collapse of prosperity, security, and globalism.

These chapters are rather bleak, as the only solution given to the modern malaise besetting men is collapse, but I can’t argue that it’s not true.

He then gives some advice on starting your own gang. This last chapter is the only part that may be practically applicable to your life, the rest of the book being a theoretical and philosophical discussion of masculinity.

Overall, this book is an excellent exploration of masculinity, and I think Donovan gets everything exactly right. This is simply the best book on masculinity I have read.

Recommendation:

If you are at all interested in men’s issues or masculinity (and you are reading a manosphere blog, so you probably are) or if you’ve ever wondered how to be man, read this book. In itself, it won’t really help you become a better man or improve your life, but it will give you the theory necessary to understand what you are missing, so you can begin to find solutions for yourself.

Buy the E-book here for only $5.99


Adam’s Original Sin: Disobedience and Betaness

For the Biblical Alpha series, we’ll start at the beginning of the Bible, with the first man, Adam.

Now, the first mention of man’s creation goes:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so. (Genesis 1:26-30)

We can see here that man was created to rule. Man’s purpose, the reason for his creation, was to rule over the rest of creation and to his expand this rule over whole earth. Mankind’s purpose is leadership.

Now, knowing man’s purpose, we move onto the first man. The Bible only gives a few chapters to Adam but they are revealing. He was created, told not to eat from a specific tree, and named the animals. While in Eden:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribhe had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:15-22)

The creation story is re-iterated, putting the focus on man. Man is created to care for creation. His purpose is leadership over the earth.

We can also see that woman was created to be a helper for man. Man is to rule, woman is to assist the man in his leadership. This is the natural Christian order of earth, man rules, woman helps man.

Man was created by God for the purpose of being the alpha over the earth. He ruled over paradise with his helper at his side.

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.(Genesis 2:25)

Man (and woman) was originally created to feel no shame. Shame is a result of sin.

It is interesting to note, that the alpha is immune to shame, but susceptibility to shame is the hallmark of the beta.

Then the Fall occurs:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from? ”

The man said, “The woman you put here with me —she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Genesis 3:1-12)

Here Adam displays a stunning lack of leadership and betaness leading to the fall.

First, while he is with her, he allows his helper to be tempted by the serpent, who is under his dominion, and he does nothing. He takes no leadership over either his helper or the one he rules.

Second, he then allows his helper to convince him to violate his duty. He falls into the woman’s frame and allows her to lead him against his own principles and duty.

Then he, rightfully, feels shame.

When confronted with his disobedience, what does he do? He shifts the blame. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions as a man and a leader, he blames his helper.

The original sin was disobedience to God. This disobedience was caused and exacerbated by the beta actions and inactions of the first man, Adam.

Had Adam taken his alpha leadership role given him by God, the Fall would not have occurred.


Lightning Round – 2012/07/3

A study says men’s  testosterone decreases over time are due to behaviour and health rather than age. So, stay healthy.

Mangan talks on the supernormal stimulus of porn and food.

Cogitans discusses how a single Roman law helped lead to its decline.

A defence of Franco.

The Captain discusses the costs of being a player. Further confirming that it’s not for me.

Women doesn’t work, has $4,500/month in income, and a $1.2-million house, then violates her contract and demands $4,000 more/month, and the dad leaves because he’s broke. Dad is the bad guy. Makes sense.

Dalrock asks “Will betas shrug?”

Roosh gives some advice to White Nationalists.

Fred’s a racist.

Destinations are for bitches, betas, and vacations.”

On the other hand, too much dissatisfaction is not good.

Ashur discusses the feminist bubble.

The difference between procedural and substantive traditionalism.

Frost reviews a book I might have to look at.

Dicipres notes that guns create a democratic effect.

Men have never been able to “have it all”. We suck it up.

I just got my gun license recently, so that’s good news.

Ace is pissed the government has been telling fat people to make themselves fatter for decades.

Hehe.

Despite all the hype that women use tech more, men still dominate it’s creation.

Why countries collapse.

Ontario runs into the laws of economics and loses.

Too bad he didn’t believe that when he was leader of the Liberals.

(H/T: Instapundit, the Captain)