…”modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.”
November 25th, 2012 - 6:24 am
In a Pew study, fewer men want to marry (via Newsalert):
The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
Really, who knew?
Modern women act too much like men…believe it or not real men don’t want to marry a woman who acts like that.
Now if she wants to be hooked up with a beta servant or the government…she can enjoy the unhappiness that brings.
I have just one question for those demanding that we ‘man up’:
“What’s in it for us?”
We’re hearing a hue and cry about how us Peter Pans are impoverishing (financially, socially, whatever) women, children and society as a whole. But it’s always phrased as being a tragedy for others, not the men themselves. How DARE we not fall into line and play the role we have been assigned. How DARE we refuse to roll the boulder up the hill. How DARE we have fun, when we should be toiling to pay for someone else’s fun. How DARE we look after our own rational best interests.
Man up and marry a woman? Why? No, seriously, why? Modern marriage holds zero benefits for the groom. We can be divorced on a whim and converted to an indentured servant for years. A man who wants to provide the best environment for his children will favour a stable, two-parent household, but that decision is ultimately not ours to make. Social conservatives and others trying to save the institute of marriage will point to statistics about how married men are healthier and happier, but they get very tetchy when asked how signing a one-sided legal contract accomplishes this, as opposed to a long term girlfriend. We are constantly told that men are afraid of commitment, yet the bulk of divorces are initiated by the woman. Funny how that works. I used to believe in starting a family; I was even lucky enough to grow up in a two-parent household, so I can’t even claim I was personally scarred somehow. But I’ve seen enough carnage amongst my friends and coworkers. I’ve no intention of being someone’s walking ATM and sperm-donor, or a prop in their ‘starter marriage.’
Man up and be a father? This line of arguement is a crock. With divorce rampant there’s a good chance we will be shut out from much of our children’s life, even if we’re willing to move heaven and earth to be there for them. The standard line is to start talking about deadbeat dads. But what about mothers who use the kids as hostages in divorce? Even if our ex-wife is a saint, we’re still going to be a casual presence at best. And if she’s even slightly vindictive, all bets are off in the family court system. Me, I like kids, and think I could do a damn good job as a father. Even thought about adopting once, but considering that the official party line is that males (and fathers) are both superfluous and evil, they’d probably drop me on the sex offender registry just for inquiring.
Man up and be a role model? What’s that? Oh, you mean old/dead white men. Why would anyone want us to emulate history’s greatest villains? Men (boys and adults alike) are bombarded with constant degradation, told we are inferior, worthless, stupid, evil, incompetent, untrustworthy subhumans. This is echoed 24/7 by our teachers, the media, the courts and our legislatures. It is even echoed by some of our own parents, who been wholly brainwashed by the constant misandrist drumbeat. In many jurisdictions and proceedings, we have been stripped of “innocent until proven guilty” (usually just customarily, but occasionally it’s explicitly enshrined in law) . I suppose a ‘real man’ would spend his days crusading against this, but I despise arguing with tittering fools and don’t need the aggravation. Besides, we can accomplish a great deal (and have, and will) simply by withdrawing our participation and our consent.
Man up and work hard? Sure. But for who? Work overtime to provide a comfortable life for your wife and kids? Who then leave because ‘you’re never there’? Work overtime to be an economic engine for the cash-strapped welfare and social security systems? Why should I feel compelled to contribute to a ponzi scheme that I’ll never collect on in my own retirement? My career is proceeding quite well, thank you very much, and I am pursuing it because it enriches (financially and emotionally) ME, not someone else.
Man up and conform to societal expectations? Half the economic woes of these past few years can be traced to the institutionalization of keeping up with the Jones. Buy the huge house, buy the yard toys, buy the RV, take that vacation abroad, be seen at the trendy new spot, buy the latest Apple gadget… Socially and economically, we have no interest in keeping up appearances. I can live very comfortably and fund my interests on as little as $20k a year. I have plenty of leisure time to enjoy my life, friends and hobbies without working myself into an early grave or stressing about where the next loan payment for my status symbol is going to come from.
The constant haranging to ‘man up’ conjures up the image of a jolly WWI general, shouting “Fix bayonets and over the top lads! The machine guns can’t get you all!” Forget it, we’re done being sacrificial lambs for someone else. Men aren’t manning up, but we ARE waking up. It’s a rigged game that we refuse to play, and no amount of shaming language is going to get us off the bench. Want more metaphors? You may have heard the term ‘marriage strike,’ but it goes beyond that. We’re not failing to ‘man up,’ we’re just working to rule. Work slowdowns will continue until management chooses to negotiate fairly and transparently; too bad they’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Yes, we’re a bunch of losers. THE losers. We lost. Feminists, welfare-statists, the rest… You won. We concede defeat. You got everything you wanted. You’ve been saying for years that you don’t need us, and we’ll gladly oblige. We’re MGTOWs, Men Going Their Own Way. We don’t want to fight you. We don’t NEED to fight you. If anything, we should be thanking you. We’re free of being beasts of others burdens. We’ve realized there is no lock on the cell door. We’ve taken the Red Pill. You can’t hurt us, and you have nothing we want.
Now, go away and leave us alone.
- Rob
well said.
I also suspect that many of these women have very inflated perceptions of their own value and the kind of man they “deserve.” Unfortunately, there’s only so many guitar-playing hedge fund managers and hunky ex-con bikers with tattoos and a trust fund to go around.
You are exactly right. Many women do want marriage. But to the same small percentage of high-achieving, high-status, high-salaried alpha males at the top of the socioeconomic food chain. When they say there are “no good men” left they mean they think it is “unfair” that they don’t have access to these high-achievers. They often fail to conceive that this might very well be for a good reason. The thought of marrying some good man in the middle seems altogether repulsive to them. If they do marry the poor schlub he will likely be punished for his “transgression” against her higher, more exalted nature.
Sure I’d love to marry a woman that looks like a supermodel, is kind, patient and gentle like a saint and thinks like a philosopher…but how likely is that?
Ultimately much of this has to do with the fact that Women’s Studies style Feminism is a war on reality. I wonder who will win?
“good man” = affluent, handsome, and ready to marry
Easy to divorce and pays handsome child support and alimony when asked (plus eagerly gives up the large house with all the amenities) then.
Very insightful. I think you hit the nail on the head. The “frustration” of dating certainly seems to center around dreading to have to settle for an average Joe and if so, the Joe will be punished for not measuring up. Too true. They want the option to refuse. Being denied this option tears at a woman’s psyche. After all, women envy one another with a fierce passion. I doubt this mindset is only reserved for rivalry.
i found this on a website, sun news network . its so true. please read
I have just one question for those demanding that we ‘man up’:
“What’s in it for us?”
We’re hearing a hue and cry about how us Peter Pans are impoverishing (financially, socially, whatever) women, children and society as a whole. But it’s always phrased as being a tragedy for others, not the men themselves. How DARE we not fall into line and play the role we have been assigned. How DARE we refuse to roll the boulder up the hill. How DARE we have fun, when we should be toiling to pay for someone else’s fun. How DARE we look after our own rational best interests.
Man up and marry a woman? Why? No, seriously, why? Modern marriage holds zero benefits for the groom. We can be divorced on a whim and converted to an indentured servant for years. A man who wants to provide the best environment for his children will favour a stable, two-parent household, but that decision is ultimately not ours to make. Social conservatives and others trying to save the institute of marriage will point to statistics about how married men are healthier and happier, but they get very tetchy when asked how signing a one-sided legal contract accomplishes this, as opposed to a long term girlfriend. We are constantly told that men are afraid of commitment, yet the bulk of divorces are initiated by the woman. Funny how that works. I used to believe in starting a family; I was even lucky enough to grow up in a two-parent household, so I can’t even claim I was personally scarred somehow. But I’ve seen enough carnage amongst my friends and coworkers. I’ve no intention of being someone’s walking ATM and sperm-donor, or a prop in their ‘starter marriage.’
Man up and be a father? This line of arguement is a crock. With divorce rampant there’s a good chance we will be shut out from much of our children’s life, even if we’re willing to move heaven and earth to be there for them. The standard line is to start talking about deadbeat dads. But what about mothers who use the kids as hostages in divorce? Even if our ex-wife is a saint, we’re still going to be a casual presence at best. And if she’s even slightly vindictive, all bets are off in the family court system. Me, I like kids, and think I could do a damn good job as a father. Even thought about adopting once, but considering that the official party line is that males (and fathers) are both superfluous and evil, they’d probably drop me on the sex offender registry just for inquiring.
Man up and be a role model? What’s that? Oh, you mean old/dead white men. Why would anyone want us to emulate history’s greatest villains? Men (boys and adults alike) are bombarded with constant degradation, told we are inferior, worthless, stupid, evil, incompetent, untrustworthy subhumans. This is echoed 24/7 by our teachers, the media, the courts and our legislatures. It is even echoed by some of our own parents, who been wholly brainwashed by the constant misandrist drumbeat. In many jurisdictions and proceedings, we have been stripped of “innocent until proven guilty” (usually just customarily, but occasionally it’s explicitly enshrined in law) . I suppose a ‘real man’ would spend his days crusading against this, but I despise arguing with tittering fools and don’t need the aggravation. Besides, we can accomplish a great deal (and have, and will) simply by withdrawing our participation and our consent.
Man up and work hard? Sure. But for who? Work overtime to provide a comfortable life for your wife and kids? Who then leave because ‘you’re never there’? Work overtime to be an economic engine for the cash-strapped welfare and social security systems? Why should I feel compelled to contribute to a ponzi scheme that I’ll never collect on in my own retirement? My career is proceeding quite well, thank you very much, and I am pursuing it because it enriches (financially and emotionally) ME, not someone else.
Man up and conform to societal expectations? Half the economic woes of these past few years can be traced to the institutionalization of keeping up with the Jones. Buy the huge house, buy the yard toys, buy the RV, take that vacation abroad, be seen at the trendy new spot, buy the latest Apple gadget… Socially and economically, we have no interest in keeping up appearances. I can live very comfortably and fund my interests on as little as $20k a year. I have plenty of leisure time to enjoy my life, friends and hobbies without working myself into an early grave or stressing about where the next loan payment for my status symbol is going to come from.
The constant haranging to ‘man up’ conjures up the image of a jolly WWI general, shouting “Fix bayonets and over the top lads! The machine guns can’t get you all!” Forget it, we’re done being sacrificial lambs for someone else. Men aren’t manning up, but we ARE waking up. It’s a rigged game that we refuse to play, and no amount of shaming language is going to get us off the bench. Want more metaphors? You may have heard the term ‘marriage strike,’ but it goes beyond that. We’re not failing to ‘man up,’ we’re just working to rule. Work slowdowns will continue until management chooses to negotiate fairly and transparently; too bad they’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Yes, we’re a bunch of losers. THE losers. We lost. Feminists, welfare-statists, the rest… You won. We concede defeat. You got everything you wanted. You’ve been saying for years that you don’t need us, and we’ll gladly oblige. We’re MGTOWs, Men Going Their Own Way. We don’t want to fight you. We don’t NEED to fight you. If anything, we should be thanking you. We’re free of being beasts of others burdens. We’ve realized there is no lock on the cell door. We’ve taken the Red Pill. You can’t hurt us, and you have nothing we want.
Now, go away and leave us alone.
- Rob
Plenty of men would love to be married, but not to a “modern” woman. If they could only find a woman who held herself to a higher moral standard, and could be trusted over the long haul. But as we are constantly reminded, that society went away with our great-grandparents.
Sadly so.
And the older I get, the less interactions overall I want to have with women. Literally for me, they have jumped the shark. Observing and dealing with them over time and realizing just how fake they really are makes me want nothing to do with them. For example I really like how they complain they can’t find good men which is a bunch of crap. They really mean to say they can’t find men who they feel entitled to because there are plenty of descent men out there. They just get the shaft because they don’t stand out and quietly go about their lives. Too boring I guess.
I’m 23 and I will never get married. I’m even debating becoming celibate to avoid a “gotcha” pregnancy. Family law is hysterical when it comes to women’s rights. I have female “acquaintances” but I don’t let them anywhere near anything I love, value or care about. I’m in university and it’s rediculous how biased the education system is to women. I know the former ceo of a international corporation who, along with the plethora of financial advice he gives me and others he mentors, never forgets to mention stay away from North American women (this is the censored version). Whenever I get together with friends and marriage comes up, we talk about how stupid an idea it would be. I truly don’t understand why any man in this climate would consider it (except he be possesed by his passions). Not only a bad idea financially, but bad emotionally as well. Good friendships are all I need. And more often then not, they help your career rather than destroy it.
Please LOVE your Mama , your sister and your daughter. Once we understand what is going on with the destruction of the middle class we can try to imagine the coming of a new man who make themselves virgins and in faith 12,000 come from each of the 12 tribes adding up to 144,000 as spoken of in God’s word the Bible in Revelation chapter 14 thus not able to be seduced by the great addiction love to Eve and they can be trained as jedi Knights figure of speech
Until then get a clear picture of what is going on now
WTF? Kids, don’t do Acid.
Well, “your Mama , your sister and your daughter” better be lovable and not that pleasure-seeking, shallow idocy that’s sex-positive divorce-happy “empowerment” these day. They want respect (and love) then they’d better be respectable (and lovable). As a man, I’m just sayin’.
Dang. Replied in the wrong place. My bad.
Well, “your Mama , your sister and your daughter” better be lovable and not afflicted that pleasure-seeking, shallow idocy that’s sex-positive divorce-happy “empowerment” these days. They want respect (and love) then they’d better be respectable (and lovable). As a man, I’m just sayin’.
I read Venker’s book on feminism that she wrote with her aunt, Phyllis Schlafly. It was pretty good, but it suffered from the same ailment her article on Fox suffers from: So-Con self-delusion. Social conservatives have the same viewpoint on men that feminists do (which Dalrock summed up as “You hold him down and I’ll rob him!”). They view men as utilities to be exploited rather than as free agents living their own lives. In this regard, Venker is as dumb as Bill Bennett or Kay Hymowitz. Pure projection.
Look at her closing statement where she says everything will pop up roses just because women will “submit to their true natures.” You have to be kidding me! How about a total revamp of Family Court, abolishing presumptive paternity, eliminating unilateral divorce, federally enforced shared parenting where no evidence of abuse or neglect is present…you know: THE LAW?!!
Women acting soft and feminine is all fine and well. Media portrayals of husbands and fathers being a bit more inspiring is all fine and well. But the law surrounding marriage is what sucks. Guys who grew up with jettisoned Dads are not likely to stand by an altar any more than downrange at a gun club.
Men are boxed into a legal corner where marriage and family mean fewer rights and more responsibilities. Then we are told to “man up” and submit to the new regime.
Are they surprised there are so few takers?
This moral and socioeconomic collapse of marriage and family may eventually do us all in. Without Fathers the welfare state will expand to cover more women and children (aka “the hubby state”) and the prison system will expand to protect us from all the disoriented and fatherless young men. This is and can only be a recipe for disaster.
Not to be too crude about it, but we’re being told: Man up and bring your own K-Y, now bend over! (No wonder there aren’t a whole lot of takers on that one.)
Dang. Replied in the wrong place. My bad.
Dang. Wrong place again.
I mostly agree but the book that you reference had an entire chapter about how men get screwed over by the law.
Socons like Venker aren’t ignorant to the anti-male laws, they just don’t care enough about men to actually change them.
You’re probably right. When the law works in your favor, you’re not likely to change it.
Unfortunately, there are more votes to be gained/lost when it comes to laws cheating men in favor of women than there is in being fair to men. The number of white knights and girlie men that will side with women far outnumber the women who would vote to be fair to men. Even good women who have no designs on hurting their men with the law nonetheless are not likely to support ending the legal protections and “back up plan” in the event the marriage fails.
Divorce proceedings enjoy the power of the state but refuses the responsibiliteis and limitations on state power because it then claims to be an “arbitration” (or some such) not subject to the Constitution. Hmm, a federal lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court that ajudges divorce proceedings to have both the authority AND responsibilities/limitations of state action under the Constitution would be nice.
Well, men, contrary to popular depiction, are not stupid. It is easy to see the gulf of difference between how good women treat men before marriage and how these very same women treat men terribly after marriage.
My grandparents had a much better marriage than my parents. A key difference is that the success or failure of the prior depended on the character of those in the marriage. Now, the success or failure depends on the whim of the wife.
How gung ho about marriage would women be if they faced the same risk men do? Men could run off with the nanny and make out like bandits, the way women who run off with pool boys do. Men could cheat and have children with other women, and the wife would lose the house and all the money and get socked with alimony for children not hers. Men could watch Dr. Phil and learn that their wives attempts to connect with her are selfish, his withdrawal is a cry for help, and whatever he does it is her fault and whatever she does is sinister.
Ready to sign up ladies?
It is worth noting that my grandfather was a staunch democrat and supported much of what has become family law today. Why? Women were revered for character and commitment, and he assumed women would behave the same under Marriage 2.0 as they did under traditional marriage. He believed that if there were more consequences for men leaving, families would be stronger. He didn’t anticipate that the consequences for men would be incentives for women to destroy the marriage.
I say this is an archetypical Liberal mistake: the assumption that men ( and women ) are fundamentally good. The law this now grandfather lived under, which harbored the marriage he had, was written with the assumption that men were fundamentally bad.
Liberals rejected the core of Christianity long before they rejected Christianity itself.
Left/libtards… assume human nature is fundamentally good (and can be made even better with a little social engineering!). Hence the Soviet Union and the New Socail Man therein. Register leftists, not guns.
Crap. “New Socialist Man,” I meant. Well, no that it really matters… NSM (like all Leftist stuff) didn’t work out anyway.
In the light of David Goldman’s consideration of the correlation between feritily and serious (i.e., non-liberal) religion, can you, Dr. Helen, break down just which men want to marry at all. What values do they have. Unless the family as a central value plays a central role in a man’s psyche, he will, I suggest, treat women for what they are outside of a family, i.e., 1. a competitor for work (with calls for discrimination against men) and 2. a sex subject at best or a sex object for mere fun. Do the women who want to marry also want children? Are they seriously religious or just bored of being alone. If there is no profound reason, why formalize (and ruin) a good relation with the legal confines of marriage? Why should it matter to a man? In short, Dr. Helen, just what do the marrying-kind of women have to offer more than companionship (for awhile) and sex (for awhile)?
Ever since childhood in the 1960s – I guess back before hardcore, radical feminism – I looked at neighbors (my mother always had a professional job) and thought that it was really unfair that men have to work their butts off and women sit home and occasionally dust.
I really mean that, and I never married because I thought it was so lop-sided. Growing up, I saw men paying enormous amounts of money over to women just because they had married them. And then the men got married all over again to the next woman. I was absolutely baffled by that behavior, and by the fact that no one seemed to notice what I did.
Now some men are starting to notice the same stuff that I did, and I find it refreshing in a way.
Now I see stupid young men absolutely sucking up to women on social websites (like Facebook) and elsewhere on the Internet. These guys are trying to act cool, and the women just pick and choose and reject. I find that equally incomprehensible – lots of men can really DO something in the world; most women can’t. I know who I would pick for usefulness between a plumber or a women’s studies graduate.
And the world keeps spinning, and I guess I’ll crack open a beer.
Under the old model: Men worked themselves into an early heart attack to provide for the wife and children. Yes, the men expected some kind of reciprocation but realized that in most cases the women would far outlast them. The bottom line was that a man’s role was to financial serve a women or he wasn’t worth much.
Women, for good or ill, decided they didn’t like that deal.
Under the new model: Women still expect men to serve them–at least until they tire of it, take half, and move on. If not in person, then by proxy i.e. taxation (Cf. Sandra Fluke). Also, in order for things to be “fair” men must tie one or both hands behind there back lest women have their feelings hurt and realize that they aren’t as superior as they think.
Either way men are mules and women are the riders.
Yeah…I wonder why men who have a lot to offer and have value in this world only see their worth by their success with women they are with. It should be the other way around but hey we’ve been brainwashed by media, society, and the government.
Reminds me of an article i read a while back. A woman wrote about how we have departments dedicated to girl’s interest and how she thought it would be a good idea to do so for men.
Then…
… she justified it by saying that the best thing the government could do for American women is to encourage men to “man up.” Then proceeded with a hit piece on men.
The mindset was men’s interest on matter insofar as how women benefit from them.
It’s interesting to want men to “man up” for women’s benefit since the whole reason we’ve used force to tear them down is for women’s benefit.
You can only give men whiplash so many times before they decide they no longer want to ride.
I’ve decided to take their demands to “Man Up” seriously by doing the ultimate “Man Up” and “Going My Own Way”. I will continue to avoid personal relationships with women and refuse to be held hostage to any of their so-called emotional needs. Chivalry is dead, Marriage is dead, women killed ‘em both.
your comment is so true. but if i do marry, it’ll be with a asian women from the rural area of china who are still believers of old tradional ways of marriage. i’m from canada where men have absolutely no rights at all. i lived common law with my ex and i was cleaned out and in huge debt and she lives comfortably on low income housing, has access to free lawyers, gets baby bonuses and does nothing all day. i got a low end job living in a rented rooming house. its all i can afford. it sucks in canada, we have no rights. women can lie in court and get away with it and be believed. no one wants to hear from men
Dalrock looks at the data:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
A concept that I’m seeing more and more – that radical feminists seem to hate – is “agency”.
In short, men are attributed agency in society and women aren’t as much.
But that is a double-edged sword. Since men are thought to do what they do intentionally (more and more questionable if you delve into consciousness studies), they are “credited” with achievements. But they are also “credited” (or debited) with evil deeds.
Women, on the other hand, are given less credit for achievements, but are protected against their wrongful deeds, because society attributes less agency to them. They are kind of robots that just react to how society and the Patriarchy and circumstances treat them. That’s why women are given far lighter prison sentences for doing the exact same thing as men.
Now determining the gender that has it worse is dependent upon your personality. If you like being able to “skate” and get lots of stuff from the other gender, being a woman is your bag. If you like to accomplish things, and don’t seem to mind having to pull a passive parasite in tow, being a man is your thing.
Feminists only present this from one side, and as oppression, and all the rest. Frankly, women today have it great: They are acknowledged for their accomplishments, but are still given the pussy pass for negative deeds.
Men are still held more or less to their traditional roles, whether they like it or not.
“Feminists only present this from one side, and as oppression, and all the rest. Frankly, women today have it great: They are acknowledged for their accomplishments, but are still given the pussy pass for negative deeds.”
They might get a pass from the powers in brainwashing…but women taking anti-depressants, living in poverty because they are single mothers, not getting married, various cancers from cock riding and birth control, and having cats as a retirement plan…I’d say they aren’t getting a pass in reality.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will catch up to you, but the pussy pass can hold them off for a while. You’d be amazed how long you can put off reality when other people have to pay for your education, housing, health care, abortions, child care, birth control, and food stamps.
One of my co-workers recently gave birth. She’s missing work almost every other day and when she’s there every 90 minutes or so she vanishes for a half hour to go lactate.
She considers herself to be just as valuable of an employee as the rest of us and thinks it’s bullshit that she doesn’t get paid for her breaks. Yes, the Gods will come for her, but the Hamster Wheel makes it seem like they never will.
Dead Julia walking.
@VVR
That was an interesting analysis. Maybe the good Doctor could pickup the ball and run with it.
I read the article and was at least some one on a major site would even look that women may be at fault. Of course that exercise alone is a major jump over the previous settings. It is a bit too much to hope that they would actually look at ALL the different grievances men have.
I am currently trying to date a dating website. It surprises me the complete lack of interest I get, except for bottom rung women. By that I mean divorced, several kids, and usually overweight. I guess I am not dashing, exciting, monied enough to attract the attention of women who haven’t completely screwed up their life.
I have to agree with TMG in that most women have an inflated sense of their market value. They all believe they deserve top shelf men even if they themselves are bargain bin. They could attract a few more men by being feminine, but I don’t know about commitment.
I have a bit wider eye than most due to the fact I work in technical support. I have seen women throw out the “I’m just a poor women who doesn’t understand this. Just fix it for me.” card even though they have been medical doctors with their own practices. In that instance you are trying to get the benefits of old school values, but of course that goes away the instant it no longer provides value.
Modern women are strong and independent when it suits them, and damsels in distress when it suits them.
The only thing more pathetic is that so many men enable the behavior.
Read this and learn:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/
Thanks for the info. If I would have to pick my biggest fault, it would be that I am too honest. I don’t want to lie to people and I figure if you are out there to find a match then you need to lay it out there. Evidently, I need to start lying through my teeth.
Ladies, you gotta go for starting around 20 years of age minimum. The closer you get to 37 the more you will see that marriageable men have been hunted to extinction.
“Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle”. Pay back is a b***h feminists!
…or like a bicycle needs a fish.
“like a bicycle needs a fish.”
This REALLY needs to be turned into a t-shirt lol! it would be funny to see reactions
A Bicycle riding off into the sunset really has no need for a Fish out of water.
you’re right but until then women are cashing in big time in divorces while we men suffer
Please , I implore you Love your Mama your sister and your daughter. Priests who make themselves virgins and become holy are chosen on earth for the temple of the true God to reach toward the holy heaven as heaven opens up with rich blessings pouring down on earth as it is in heaven but there are new RINGS of POWER coming and the men who receive them share this ring with the women their only true love whereas anti christs given these rings of power do not share power
The Churchian Acid Trip.
Yeah, I remember how good the Lord of the Rings was the first time I read it too…
From the article:
“Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”
Even her conclusion ignores the problem! Women have surrendered to their nature and it’s not very feminine, its hypergamous, solipsistic and narcissistic. They’re drowning under the baggage and her suggestion is to deny the baggage exists. Uh….I’ll go to my grave telling younger men to avoid marriage and any other legal contracts that punish the honorable and reward the con artist.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
Men not wanting to get married is the trouble only for women. It’s the solution for men.
bwhahahahahaha. that is so true. its women problem that we don’t want to marry.
The first step of the scientific method is to identify the problem. The problem here is with the law. I keep saying this, a no one responds to it.
Presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, and no fault divorce render the marriage contract null and void from the very beginning. So why get married?
The modern Amerian girl cannot understand this, and I look upon that as not my problem. She is not worth 50%. She certainly is not deserving of presumptive paternity.
She has an education. She has a job. She earns a salary. She can buy her own house. What does she need a man for?
Answer: guaranteed child support. She can get that from any single man, but what she wants is a husband who is required to pay child support regardless of who the biological father is.
Until women are willing to address this issue, nothing is going to change. And so marriage remains irresonpible for any rational and successful man. We can get all the sex we want, it’s not very difficult.
The love myth is the downfall of girls these days. You hear it all the time, see it in the movies and on TV. The superior woman and all that.
What about the law? Is anyone talking about changing the law? I can get laid anytime I want. And I will be respondible for any child I conceive. But getting married is out of the question. I do not agree to the terms and conditions of the contract.
The only solution here is to change the terms and conditions of the contract, so that it is mutually agreeable to both parties. That’s not going to happen any time soon, so that makes her worth what? A dinner, a tequilla shot, a lie to the face, and a one night stand at a hotel.
And now she doesn’t like it. I don’t care. Change the law. When I start hearing women talking about chanching the law, then I’ll listen. Until such time, she’ll never be worth more than a dinner, a tequilla shot and lie to the face. A one night stand at a hotel, is that all the modern American girl wants to be?
Obviously it is, since she isn’t saying or doing anything to change that assumsption.
When women and men start to seriously adress the law, then maybe it will change. Until such time, I choose to remain single, and get laid whenever I want. Go on with my life, single, sucessful, with no worries.
She can whine and complain all she wants. It doesn’t affect me. The sacrament is not the contract. The terms and conditions of the contract are completely unuacceptable. Either change the term and conditions of the contract, or STF up. Because there is no way that I am going to agree to it.
She can complain all she wants. That’s what she does, complain. When she gets serious about the law, then I’ll pay attention.
I think the reason nobody replies is that nobody disagrees with you.
As long as we don’t have children, we can be equal with men, the minute we get pregnant and give birth, we are going to miss work. It would be the same if men gave birth, they would need someone to pull the weight for the first couple years. So the easiest solution is birth control, so please don’t mess with it.
So here’s a question: what effect, if any, will re-defining “marriage” to include same-sex unions have on the heterosexual desire to marry? I work with lots of young adults (17-25) and calling something “gay” isn’t a compliment among them. Will seeing marriage as “gay” have an effect on its desirability for heterosexuals, especially men who already have some strong dis-incentives towards marriage?
Gay marriage is a red herring. The church has already done far more damage to marriage by not promoting traditional roles within real marriage than gay marriage ever could.
I don’t disagree that organized religion has largely dropped the ball in regards to promoting traditional marriage values, but that doesn’t really answer my question. The gay marriage proponents claim that it will do no harm *right now*, and thus, by implication, will never have any negative society-wide effects.
I’m not sure that that’s true. If marriage is seen as “gay”, how many people who weren’t wedded (pun intended) to the idea might forego it who otherwise would’ve made the plunge? And this doesn’t even address the question of how one defends prohibitions on group or incestuous marriage when the same arguments for gay marriage are just as legitimate for the latter cases (the eugenic argument against incestuous relations falls apart in the face of sonograms, amniocentesis, and legal abortion, and never even applies in cases of incestuous homosexuals [http://tinyurl.com/7f86l3w]).
You can’t harm an institution that is already dead. The Churchians are willing accomplices to the women in the divorce industry.
When gays are included in “divorce rape” as the responsibilities of modern marriage, they won’t want to get married either. Half! And the house! Alimony!
“and calling something gay”
Those kids 12 to 25 , i believe nice jobs await them taking care of baby boom elderly where they can find wisdom. The first thing they may notice is how many elderly woman look like old man and their husband look like old woman. This prove there is no marriage in heaven just a removal of butt-ugly yet an elderly wrinkle face maybe the height of great beauty to a million year old angel
But this is why I believe homo marry homo because one day one play the female and next day man and their faithfulness to each other for LIFE TIME is key for the elite higher ups to judge if they worthy of escaping hell fire in afterlife I believe
more latter on the value of faithfulness in marriage
Dr. Helen,
The problem is Women don’t want to get married until just about all their sexual currency value is gone or only has 10% left before finding a husband and getting married. Men don’t want to put their lifetime financial stake at risk when they only get to enjoy at most 10% of that woman’s sexual currency value while the fun exciting guys with no futures got to enjoy the other 90% of that woman’s sexual currency at bargain prices.
I just did a blogpost on this (Dissecting Women’s Sexual Currency Value)
http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2012/11/disecting-womens-sexual-currency-value.html
Also earlier this week I wrote and published an entry called (Is the Manosphere Dead?) This is where I discuss issues driving men away from marriage.
http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-manoshphere-really-dead.html
I know your busy, especially with your book coming out next year. In these two posts alone you would get a pretty clear idea why men are running away from marriage.
Thank you. I look forward to reading these.
You appear to have constructed this abstract concept, “sexual currency”, to describe something that biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists have been dealing with for 50 years, namely that, in an environment where (1) breeding pairs develop long term pair bonds and (2) most children don’t survive to adulthood and (3) females go into menopause, there is a good reason for men to prefer young wives/girlfriends. In most mammalian species, males solve this problem by not having long term pair bonds with the females doing (almost all of the work in raising the offspring.
However, in modern western countries, most children do survive to adulthood and most couples have fewer children than they are biologically capable of (e.g., Helen and Glenn have only one child), largely because each child requires so much investment, the entire argument no longer makes sense. FWIW, the change from many children/high child mortality to few children/invest heavily in each is known as the “demographic transition”.
The big question, it seems to me, is whether or not a civilization can survive/continue on the fewer, albeit heavily invested in, children. Especially if the fertility rate falls below replacement. Which it appears to have done, perhaps only temporarily.
Maybe we can do just as well with a smaller population. I am not so sure. If we cannot so thrive (or even survive given the increasing demands of the welfare state) than what changes could we make? Are we to think that women will give up the option for “actualization” and achievement and begin giving birth at a higher rate? i.e return to “traditional” motherhood roles? Since fertility rates are largely–though of course not entirely–determined by females, I think we are in big trouble.
Let’s hope I am wrong.
Or perhaps cyborg babies produced in artificial wombs will be the salvation of us all. Then we can all download into some androgynous cybernetic body. Or something.
I think we can definitely survive with fewer people on the planet, say about 300 million and I think most of the other species on this planet would be better off. (Putting on my flame suit now.) We are, by far, the most populous large animal species on Earth. However, reducing the population to that point would require substantial adjustments, as can be seen by what is happening in Japan.
Well, then, flame on! Not really. But whenever I hear someone say there are too many people, I notice that it usually means there are too many of *you* people. The one saying it isn’t usually volunteering to die and make more room for others.
Bob H,
You bring very interesting points about evolution and biology. I never directly thought about in those terms. What I did was put currency values on the years which I felt were the most sought after and desired by men. It’s my belief that at least 80& of women’s sexual value takes place during the 18-25 years. In my post I have 84% of the currency covering the 18-25 years, I’m sure if other guys drew it up the percentages may differ by a few points but not by much. Biologically speaking guys are wired and really want to have sex with the 18-25 year olds not with the 30 plus years.
When a post 25 year old is now seeking marriage, my thought would be why should a man put his entire financial stake at risk when at the very most is only getting 20% of that woman sexual currency (I was more harsh in my blogpost)
Then of course when these women get bored of their husbands these men can get destroyed in an instant.
Also, even if guys are striking out in terms of getting women in their 20’s, they could still enjoy the sexual benefits of attractive 21-25 year olds via escorts Asian Massage Parlors Babes and overseas bachelor vacations at a fraction of the cost of a marriage and divorce once they get financially stable. Won’t post any links here but for those interested you could check out the Bachelor Links post which I have in my index section on the right side of my blog.
If a guy makes 100K a year and rents attractive 23 year old escort babes once a week at $200 for a 1 hour session, he spent $10,400 on women or 10.4% of his income on women. Odds or in a marriage over 50% of his income is going to other people and not to himself and the odds are his wife is nowhere near as attractive as the 23 year old escort babes.
Given the legal climate it makes no sense for a man to get married since he could lose everything including his kids (should always get them paternity tested to be sure) in an instant. On top of taking this enormous risk, at most you only get 10-20% of the woman’s sexual currency value.
Yet women are wondering why we don’t want to get married, go figure!
A couple of things you forgot to mention are the plethora of false accusations (of ‘harassment’, of ‘stalking’, of ”domestic violence’, of ‘rape’, etc., etc.) that the typical modern, ‘strong’, ‘independent’, man-hating, lying feminazi-in-disguise is all-too-ready to make at the drop of a hat, and the support that they show for other female false accusers.
A smart man does NOT have anything to do with (let alone, MARRY) someone he can’t trust.
And modern women have shown by their actions that they are liars who can’t be trusted.
Looks like my initial reply didn’t go through so I will try one more time (ignore this if it ends up being a repeat.)
To respond to The Red Pill,
You are right that in my ‘Dissecting Women’s Sexual Currency Value’ post I didn’t mention the issues you described. All though I did embed a youtube video of what could happen to you if you give in and marry a used up woman (or any woman for that matter). What happened to that Massachusetts Fire Fighter (26 second to 1:48 part of the clip) was quite disturbing if you ask me.
I do think in my archives I somewhat touched up on a few of these issues. In 2007 back in my hardcore blogging days, I typed up most of the book called ‘From Courtship to Courtroom’ (What Divorce Law is Doing to Marriage) by Jed Abraham I typed into 50 blogposts.
In the chapter When Your Wife Files for Divorce, Jed Abraham wrote that the opening move for the wife to file for divorce is to falsely accuse her husband of domestic violence. By doing this, the cops will come out arrest the husband and boot him out of the house. This gives the Wife a strong upper hand in a bitter custody/divorce battle.
Also I typed up a few pages from the book Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville. I typed up pages 143-146 in a blog post called Wanna Get Married and/or Have Kids
http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2010/04/wanna-get-married-andor-have-kids.html
Pretty disturbing stuff if you ask me. The only win move men have when it comes to marriage is you win by not playing!
DON’T GET MARRIED
Outcast- i agree with your analysis on MGTOW continuing to grow. I think the evidence is very clear. And whether or not these guys go on manosphere websites, it’s still important we get the message out there because then they will realize their feelings against marriage are valid and justified.
About the only things that could change the trend are 1. A revival of humanity and empathy among women (not gonna happen) or 2. A Bachelor tax, wherein men are expected to pay more tax if they stay single. It happened in the Roman empire so it’s not too outlandish to think it could happen. And I’d bet money the idea will come from a coalition of Feminist and Social Conservative lawmakers.
The day that there is a “bachelor tax” is the day I start looking for work where I can be paid under the table.
I have a female friend who is a self-described “gender warrior”. She once proposed to me, in all seriousness, that women should be fully paid by the government when they want to have children. At the time I just sort of laughed it off.
This is simply servitude and inequality before the law. It is the eradication of any male involvement in family life. In my darker moments I believe that is exactly where we are headed. Perhaps some other metrosexual president like our current officeholder. Or if some future female democrat–God help us–ever gets elected. If so, we have a *very* bumpy road ahead.
“I have a female friend who is a self-described “gender warrior”. She once proposed to me, in all seriousness, that women should be fully paid by the government when they want to have children.”
This woman is your “friend”?!?!
Of course! Women should have options, men should have obligations. Welcome to the American Feminazi Police State. And then women wonder so many men seem “disinterested” in long term relations.
I think a bachelor tax, if instituted, will come from Mike Huckabee / Rick Santorum – style big government theocrats with a lot of feminists jumping on the bandwagon.
TMG,
I agree with you that this information needs to be out there on the web for these men to have their beliefs validated. The point I was trying make in my post if you can’t call the manosphere dead just because a few sites don’t get much traffic.
If a young man saw someone close to him get screwed really bad in a divorce, this will have a huge psychological impact
If a young man who worked hard and played by the rules in his 20’s but continued to get snubbed by women. This will have a psychological impact. Once in their 30’s why settle for those 30 plus year olds when they now can rent attractive 21-24 year olds at $200 an hour
If a young man can’t get his career started because of not having necessary experience or getting discriminated by Feminist Human Resource departments, now his career is going to start much later. This will have a psychological impact.
If young men feel the world is against them and working hard is no guaranteed path to success. This also will have a psychological impact and therefore put minimal effort in life.
In my conclusion, the manosphere will grow by the masses even if a few bloggers call the manosphere dead because they’re not getting the traffic to their site or blog that they wish to get.
“About the only things that could change the trend are 1. A revival of humanity and empathy among women (not gonna happen) or 2. A Bachelor tax, wherein men are expected to pay more tax if they stay single. It happened in the Roman empire so it’s not too outlandish to think it could happen.”
-
And when the Romans tried the bachelor tax they found it did not work as they desired – many Romans, already crushed by heavy taxation, crossed the border to make new lives among the barbarian tribes, where they found fewer taxes and more freedom. Those that did not take that path, still found that paying a bachelor tax was much less expensive than marriage(wedding & a feast, housing for the wife, new furniture, supporting kids).
modern women want to walk down the aisle and have a party afterward with their superficial friends. if they wanted to really “be” married then they wouldn’t initiate divorce almost always. besides, what man wants to marry women who’ve been around quite a bit, starting very early in high school and racking up partners until 34? c’mon.
Yeah, I really want a woman who’s had 97 previous sex partners and can’t achieve emotional attachment except as the arousal from remembrance of a significant orgasm… and then there’s getting divorced by her and losing everything because someone else got her rocks off newer and better.
(Thanks, liberals.)
Why volunteer for slavery? I don’t care how amicable the master is. What man in his right mind signs a blatant self dealing contract? I’ve watched and learned. Only a foolish man enters into “legal” Matrimony.
Besides, they are all in so much debt starting a family is not an option. Meh? I do fine alone, and when I want the company of woman, one is always available. So why get married?
In today’s news, men don’t want to get married.
This just in… men also don’t want to jam their hand in a running blender.
Good one!
…or stick their finger in a light socket.
Modern women want to be married, they just don’t want to be wives. Modern women have been taught that they must be accommodated but accommodating a man is wrong.
You have it just slightly wrong: modern women don’t really want to be “married” so much as they just want to have “their” wedding (with all of the ‘necessary’ pomp and ceremony), to be followed later on by the awarding of ‘cash and prizes’ after the divorce.
I wonder — do they ever seriously ponder why more and more men don’t/won’t marry them?
Of course, they shouldn’t wonder why more and more men aren’t marrying — so much as they should wonder wny men are marrying AT ALL.
I totally agree Helen, please keep up your good work.
But in the Amazon link to the book Men on Strike, the description refers many times to (an earlier working title?) Male Strike.
I think you’d do well to change it.
Not sure I need to read it, since I’d just get more upset.
Thanks, I saw that, need to tell the publisher to change it. I understand your feelings about my book, it doesn’t help to get more upset. However, the book is meant to be a wake-up call and gives action-oriented suggestions for men to try and make their own life better so I hope that rather than feelings of despair and anger, it will promote hope and action.
It’s pretty simple, really. Consider these rough numbers:
50% of marriages end in divorce
60% of first marriages end in divorce
75% of divorces are initiated by the woman
In almost 100% of cases men are required to pay alimony/maintenance and/or child support to the woman. Exceptions to this are still anecdotal at best.
Men who marry under the misconception that they will get frequent sex and affection may be disappointed to learn that the woman can refuse to have sex or contribute in any meaningful way with no repercussions. Men who seek sex and affection outside the marriage will be forced to pay even more in the inevitable divorce settlement.
Marriage is a trap and men are increasingly figuring this out.
this is what i found on a news network sunnews. please read.
I have just one question for those demanding that we ‘man up’:
“What’s in it for us?”
We’re hearing a hue and cry about how us Peter Pans are impoverishing (financially, socially, whatever) women, children and society as a whole. But it’s always phrased as being a tragedy for others, not the men themselves. How DARE we not fall into line and play the role we have been assigned. How DARE we refuse to roll the boulder up the hill. How DARE we have fun, when we should be toiling to pay for someone else’s fun. How DARE we look after our own rational best interests.
Man up and marry a woman? Why? No, seriously, why? Modern marriage holds zero benefits for the groom. We can be divorced on a whim and converted to an indentured servant for years. A man who wants to provide the best environment for his children will favour a stable, two-parent household, but that decision is ultimately not ours to make. Social conservatives and others trying to save the institute of marriage will point to statistics about how married men are healthier and happier, but they get very tetchy when asked how signing a one-sided legal contract accomplishes this, as opposed to a long term girlfriend. We are constantly told that men are afraid of commitment, yet the bulk of divorces are initiated by the woman. Funny how that works. I used to believe in starting a family; I was even lucky enough to grow up in a two-parent household, so I can’t even claim I was personally scarred somehow. But I’ve seen enough carnage amongst my friends and coworkers. I’ve no intention of being someone’s walking ATM and sperm-donor, or a prop in their ‘starter marriage.’
Man up and be a father? This line of arguement is a crock. With divorce rampant there’s a good chance we will be shut out from much of our children’s life, even if we’re willing to move heaven and earth to be there for them. The standard line is to start talking about deadbeat dads. But what about mothers who use the kids as hostages in divorce? Even if our ex-wife is a saint, we’re still going to be a casual presence at best. And if she’s even slightly vindictive, all bets are off in the family court system. Me, I like kids, and think I could do a damn good job as a father. Even thought about adopting once, but considering that the official party line is that males (and fathers) are both superfluous and evil, they’d probably drop me on the sex offender registry just for inquiring.
Man up and be a role model? What’s that? Oh, you mean old/dead white men. Why would anyone want us to emulate history’s greatest villains? Men (boys and adults alike) are bombarded with constant degradation, told we are inferior, worthless, stupid, evil, incompetent, untrustworthy subhumans. This is echoed 24/7 by our teachers, the media, the courts and our legislatures. It is even echoed by some of our own parents, who been wholly brainwashed by the constant misandrist drumbeat. In many jurisdictions and proceedings, we have been stripped of “innocent until proven guilty” (usually just customarily, but occasionally it’s explicitly enshrined in law) . I suppose a ‘real man’ would spend his days crusading against this, but I despise arguing with tittering fools and don’t need the aggravation. Besides, we can accomplish a great deal (and have, and will) simply by withdrawing our participation and our consent.
Man up and work hard? Sure. But for who? Work overtime to provide a comfortable life for your wife and kids? Who then leave because ‘you’re never there’? Work overtime to be an economic engine for the cash-strapped welfare and social security systems? Why should I feel compelled to contribute to a ponzi scheme that I’ll never collect on in my own retirement? My career is proceeding quite well, thank you very much, and I am pursuing it because it enriches (financially and emotionally) ME, not someone else.
Man up and conform to societal expectations? Half the economic woes of these past few years can be traced to the institutionalization of keeping up with the Jones. Buy the huge house, buy the yard toys, buy the RV, take that vacation abroad, be seen at the trendy new spot, buy the latest Apple gadget… Socially and economically, we have no interest in keeping up appearances. I can live very comfortably and fund my interests on as little as $20k a year. I have plenty of leisure time to enjoy my life, friends and hobbies without working myself into an early grave or stressing about where the next loan payment for my status symbol is going to come from.
The constant haranging to ‘man up’ conjures up the image of a jolly WWI general, shouting “Fix bayonets and over the top lads! The machine guns can’t get you all!” Forget it, we’re done being sacrificial lambs for someone else. Men aren’t manning up, but we ARE waking up. It’s a rigged game that we refuse to play, and no amount of shaming language is going to get us off the bench. Want more metaphors? You may have heard the term ‘marriage strike,’ but it goes beyond that. We’re not failing to ‘man up,’ we’re just working to rule. Work slowdowns will continue until management chooses to negotiate fairly and transparently; too bad they’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Yes, we’re a bunch of losers. THE losers. We lost. Feminists, welfare-statists, the rest… You won. We concede defeat. You got everything you wanted. You’ve been saying for years that you don’t need us, and we’ll gladly oblige. We’re MGTOWs, Men Going Their Own Way. We don’t want to fight you. We don’t NEED to fight you. If anything, we should be thanking you. We’re free of being beasts of others burdens. We’ve realized there is no lock on the cell door. We’ve taken the Red Pill. You can’t hurt us, and you have nothing we want.
Now, go away and leave us alone.
- Rob
I think that those above have gotten a lot of the points that I wanted to make. Nevertheless, it still bears asking, why would a guy want to get married? Here are my answers, and the related problems today.
1) To have and raise a family.
No surprise, a large majority of the time, the women are the ones filing for divorce, secure in the knowledge that they will most likely get custody and support for any children. The male view is that he is treated like a sperm donor bank account, and what is the joy in that?
2) Sex
Yes, supposedly married people have better sex over the long term. But, that is until the woman files for divorce. Besides, used to be that you needed to marry many, if not most, women to have sex with them. Now, just get them drunk enough, or take them to an expensive dinner.
3) Being taken care of.
Traditionally, the man went out of the house, brought home the bacon, and the woman gave him a beautiful home, handled the children, cooked for him, etc. Now days? Chores are supposed to be shared, and both come home from work exhausted.
One real danger these days in this is that marriage was what civilized males. It turned them from slackers into productive members of society, because they now had wives and families to support. Sure, work was hard and often boring, but it was worth it because of their families. But, with more young men not marrying, or marrying much later, the result is the slacker generation, where a lot of the guys just play (often very hard) throughout their 20s into their 30s.
I think that the “Julia” phenomenon of recent years, and, esp. of the last election is one way that women are responding to this. Instead of depending (for a short period of time) on men for support, they have discovered that they can get much of what they used to get from men from the government, and have voted the last two Presidential elections accordingly. Of course, it is a Ponzi scheme of the worst sort, and ultimately they will primarily be stealing from their sisters, the women who work hard and don’t have families, since the men who typically filled this role are off mountain biking, rock climbing, etc.
Wow. I just found this site and read all the comments. Overall I could not agree more. I married young, am now divorced, and went back to school. At school, and being single, I have had a very sharp and abrupt education of the modern woman. I could easily list a bunch of examples, but I would essentially be repeating the wise comments written above. Simply put, I am woefully disappointed by them.
I know how terrible this will sound, and to be honest, in the past I would have been incredulous to know my thoughts now. There is no gentle way to put this, so it is. As everyone knows, years ago, everywhere on earth life was hard – very hard in some, or most, cases. Nearly everything that people did was out of necessity, and this included the way that society was organized, or became organized, through the years. Women were put in a secondary, or subservient role. Such a position is now reviled by modern societies, and to me as well – really. What I’ve pondered lately is, if everything was done out of necessity, was it also necessity to relegate women to this role, essentially locking them in place, so to speak? I dare to venture that it was. Things had to work, period. There was no room for any of their emotion-based actions or fanciful whims and half logic that we all know govern the female mind (I know how horrible this sounds, and I also know that there are a few gem-like exceptions) to get in the way of survival. My guess is that people “back in the day” knew this very well. They did not need any grand studies or experiments to see or prove this because consequences to these things would have come quickly and been absolute (by way of too little food, insufficient defenses, etc). Today however, due to the extreme hard work and suffering of those before us, we live in a very “cush” world. Now there is not a garden, if which left untended, that will leave the family starving, or a shelter that if not repaired will leave the family freezing. Life is easy, and women have shrugged off their responsibilities to family and society in pursuit of whims and shallow-minded personal gratification.
Women’s half-logic enables this, for they as a group cannot see any repercussions that this behavior has and will have on society. By and large they are not deep thinkers, spending the energies of their mind on the mundanities of existence. We all know this, even if we don’t want to admit it. Think about it for a minute. How many times have you been in a public place and really looked around? If you happen to see anyone in deep thought, the odds are it’s not a woman. By saying this, don’t get me wrong – a multitude of men are vacuous, shallow individuals. I’m just saying that for the most part women are just “living in the now”. They’re much more likely to be on Facebook than on a hard news channel where some serious issue is being addressed. It is not really in them to have any grand designs or goals for humanity. Does anyone here really think that trips to the moon or the Internet would have been engineered, either in thought or reality, by women? You know what I mean. How many highly-accomplished, forward-thinking female science fiction writers can you name? How many female physicists? Or how about how many female computer giants? Off the top of my head some male names come to mind: names like Heinlein, Asimov, Einstein, Hawking, Jobs, and Gates.
Today, we unfortunately do have a grand study/experiment to study the effects of women’s whimsical nature. The study is female liberation and the results are all the things that were elucidated in the entries above.
I know how harsh and terrible this sounds, and am not exactly happy to think it. However, I’ve seen too much evidence that backs this view up to think otherwise.
Women see the term “gender equality” more like a buffet from which they may pick and choose what they like but leave other items.
Ex: Ohh, equal pay, I’ll have one of those! No I’ll pass on the military draft thing.. Oh look, alimony pay. No I don’t want the fixing- the -tire -blowout- at -the- side -of- a- rainy- and- busy- highway.
What is the incentive for men to get married? Why would a man willingly give up his freedom and any possible opportunities? What is the psych profile of men who actually do want to get married and how do they compare with the general male population? To be frank, these are the questions people are not asking – or answering.
At this point, self-hating masochists into cuckold play… if they like getting screwed over, they’ll sure get it and then some.
Holy crap are you guys hostile! I admit, I didn’t read all of these comments (I couldn’t bear to), but I did read many of them; and they all seemed to mention how the only thing women do is take advantage of men and want to be accommodated. Of course, some women are like that. Some men do the same thing to women. But for God’s sake, why jump on the entire female gender like that? Have you guys all been burned that many times, or what?? Geez Louise! Many of you are complaining about the “modern woman” – how do you define that? you mean a woman with a career and a college education, who knows what she wants and asserts herself? One who doesn’t simply live to please her man? Well, tough crap for you guys if you can’t handle a woman with a brain and confidence! I always thought confidence was sexy! And where is this Dr. Helen? Shouldn’t she be moderating this bash-fest, putting her two cents in?
Laura, no one on here is saying that it’s not good for a woman to be educated and have a career. All we are doing is pointing out the obvious…WOMEN CANNOT HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!!!
The problem you’re having with all of these posts is, you didn’t find that out until just now.
So do me a favor, don’t reply with the typical bullshit response stating how women today are strong and independent and CAN have it all. Because, quite frankly, the statistics just don’t support that argument.
Laura, a woman with all that is fine (my mother and father’s mother are definite and strong-willed Alpha females) but character (morals and the maturity of foresight) must also be there. “Character doesn’t count” these days; it’s oppressive and gets in the way of fulfillment. Marriage is no longer a “commitmnent,” but a “relationship” that must always sustain the “in love” feeling or “it’s over” (with women initiating 75% of divorces and receiving the house, the kids and at least half of their spouse’s income regardless of whether the woman “found someone else” or not). Character, Laura. That’s it. Or is that too judgmnental?
Laura, a woman with all that is fine (my mother and father’s mother are definite and strong-willed Alpha females) but character (morals and the maturity of foresight) must also be there. “Character doesn’t count” these days; it’s oppressive and gets in the way of fulfillment. Marriage is no longer a “commitmnent,” but a “relationship” that must always sustain the “in love” feeling or “it’s over” (with women initiating 75% of divorces and receiving the house, the kids and at least half of their spouse’s income regardless of whether the woman “found someone else” or not). Character, Laura. That’s it. Or is that too judgmnental?
Laura, a woman with all that is fine (my mother and father’s mother are definite and strong-willed Alpha females) but character (morals and the maturity of foresight) must also be there. “Character doesn’t count” these days; it’s oppressive and gets in the way of fulfillment. Marriage is no longer a “commitmnent,” but a “relationship” that must always sustain the “in love” feeling or “it’s over” (with women initiating 75% of divorces and receiving the house, the kids and at least half of their spouse’s income regardless of whether the woman “found someone else” or not). Character, Laura. That’s it. Or is that too judgmental?
Aw, crap… got the Microsoft “spinning circle of death” from the computer during that time above, didn’t mean for all 3x of the same reply. Sorry.
NAWALT, maybe. Welcome to the new paradigm sister,today’s young women reaping the harvest of 2 generations of “gender feminism”. Sure, not all gals are self deluded jerks, but the current state enforced(force of arms)cultural model, re family/criminal law, is so MISANDRIC, smart guys are opting out enmasse. Wake up Laura!
i found this on a news website. this is how most men feel nowadays. read
I have just one question for those demanding that we ‘man up’:
“What’s in it for us?”
We’re hearing a hue and cry about how us Peter Pans are impoverishing (financially, socially, whatever) women, children and society as a whole. But it’s always phrased as being a tragedy for others, not the men themselves. How DARE we not fall into line and play the role we have been assigned. How DARE we refuse to roll the boulder up the hill. How DARE we have fun, when we should be toiling to pay for someone else’s fun. How DARE we look after our own rational best interests.
Man up and marry a woman? Why? No, seriously, why? Modern marriage holds zero benefits for the groom. We can be divorced on a whim and converted to an indentured servant for years. A man who wants to provide the best environment for his children will favour a stable, two-parent household, but that decision is ultimately not ours to make. Social conservatives and others trying to save the institute of marriage will point to statistics about how married men are healthier and happier, but they get very tetchy when asked how signing a one-sided legal contract accomplishes this, as opposed to a long term girlfriend. We are constantly told that men are afraid of commitment, yet the bulk of divorces are initiated by the woman. Funny how that works. I used to believe in starting a family; I was even lucky enough to grow up in a two-parent household, so I can’t even claim I was personally scarred somehow. But I’ve seen enough carnage amongst my friends and coworkers. I’ve no intention of being someone’s walking ATM and sperm-donor, or a prop in their ‘starter marriage.’
Man up and be a father? This line of arguement is a crock. With divorce rampant there’s a good chance we will be shut out from much of our children’s life, even if we’re willing to move heaven and earth to be there for them. The standard line is to start talking about deadbeat dads. But what about mothers who use the kids as hostages in divorce? Even if our ex-wife is a saint, we’re still going to be a casual presence at best. And if she’s even slightly vindictive, all bets are off in the family court system. Me, I like kids, and think I could do a damn good job as a father. Even thought about adopting once, but considering that the official party line is that males (and fathers) are both superfluous and evil, they’d probably drop me on the sex offender registry just for inquiring.
Man up and be a role model? What’s that? Oh, you mean old/dead white men. Why would anyone want us to emulate history’s greatest villains? Men (boys and adults alike) are bombarded with constant degradation, told we are inferior, worthless, stupid, evil, incompetent, untrustworthy subhumans. This is echoed 24/7 by our teachers, the media, the courts and our legislatures. It is even echoed by some of our own parents, who been wholly brainwashed by the constant misandrist drumbeat. In many jurisdictions and proceedings, we have been stripped of “innocent until proven guilty” (usually just customarily, but occasionally it’s explicitly enshrined in law) . I suppose a ‘real man’ would spend his days crusading against this, but I despise arguing with tittering fools and don’t need the aggravation. Besides, we can accomplish a great deal (and have, and will) simply by withdrawing our participation and our consent.
Man up and work hard? Sure. But for who? Work overtime to provide a comfortable life for your wife and kids? Who then leave because ‘you’re never there’? Work overtime to be an economic engine for the cash-strapped welfare and social security systems? Why should I feel compelled to contribute to a ponzi scheme that I’ll never collect on in my own retirement? My career is proceeding quite well, thank you very much, and I am pursuing it because it enriches (financially and emotionally) ME, not someone else.
Man up and conform to societal expectations? Half the economic woes of these past few years can be traced to the institutionalization of keeping up with the Jones. Buy the huge house, buy the yard toys, buy the RV, take that vacation abroad, be seen at the trendy new spot, buy the latest Apple gadget… Socially and economically, we have no interest in keeping up appearances. I can live very comfortably and fund my interests on as little as $20k a year. I have plenty of leisure time to enjoy my life, friends and hobbies without working myself into an early grave or stressing about where the next loan payment for my status symbol is going to come from.
The constant haranging to ‘man up’ conjures up the image of a jolly WWI general, shouting “Fix bayonets and over the top lads! The machine guns can’t get you all!” Forget it, we’re done being sacrificial lambs for someone else. Men aren’t manning up, but we ARE waking up. It’s a rigged game that we refuse to play, and no amount of shaming language is going to get us off the bench. Want more metaphors? You may have heard the term ‘marriage strike,’ but it goes beyond that. We’re not failing to ‘man up,’ we’re just working to rule. Work slowdowns will continue until management chooses to negotiate fairly and transparently; too bad they’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Yes, we’re a bunch of losers. THE losers. We lost. Feminists, welfare-statists, the rest… You won. We concede defeat. You got everything you wanted. You’ve been saying for years that you don’t need us, and we’ll gladly oblige. We’re MGTOWs, Men Going Their Own Way. We don’t want to fight you. We don’t NEED to fight you. If anything, we should be thanking you. We’re free of being beasts of others burdens. We’ve realized there is no lock on the cell door. We’ve taken the Red Pill. You can’t hurt us, and you have nothing we want.
Now, go away and leave us alone.
- Rob
I think Laura’s post is a good example of the delusion that most women are under. They [modern woman] are shocked and appalled at what’s being written in vitriol about them. So, the typical response is, “Have you guys all been burned that many times, or what?” The answer…NO! But we [men] have all smelled the smoke and seen the funeral pire that was the 20th Century man. Thank God our brothers sacrifices and taking one for the team will not go in vain. Because today, Laura, is a new day! The dawn has broken through and illuminated the potholes and piles of shit that lay along our [men's] paths toward independence and freedom.
No longer will we [men] have to live in fear and kiss ass with the hopes of being loved, adored and excepted by women. No longer will we be shamed into the suplicating position of the thumbsucking nincompoop that’s detailed on every commercial and sitcom. NO!!!!! Our days of being crafted and molded to fit an ideal have ended. Women used the bully pulpit in the last century to destroy, not only men, but manhood. And to be honest, Laura, you should be offended and upset that you were lied to by the media, entertainment industry and your fellow sisters in arms.
What you read in these posts is equality at it’s finest!!!
How does it feel baby?
Totally, I never understood why women always bring up that point..’oh did a woman ever hurt you?’ .. for me the answer is a resounding NO! cause I just dont let them.. I am clever enough to realize when the fire is about to burn out and usually end it right there, and another rule i have is ‘dont get attached to anything in life, period!’
so true. found this on sunnews website here. read
I have just one question for those demanding that we ‘man up’:
“What’s in it for us?”
We’re hearing a hue and cry about how us Peter Pans are impoverishing (financially, socially, whatever) women, children and society as a whole. But it’s always phrased as being a tragedy for others, not the men themselves. How DARE we not fall into line and play the role we have been assigned. How DARE we refuse to roll the boulder up the hill. How DARE we have fun, when we should be toiling to pay for someone else’s fun. How DARE we look after our own rational best interests.
Man up and marry a woman? Why? No, seriously, why? Modern marriage holds zero benefits for the groom. We can be divorced on a whim and converted to an indentured servant for years. A man who wants to provide the best environment for his children will favour a stable, two-parent household, but that decision is ultimately not ours to make. Social conservatives and others trying to save the institute of marriage will point to statistics about how married men are healthier and happier, but they get very tetchy when asked how signing a one-sided legal contract accomplishes this, as opposed to a long term girlfriend. We are constantly told that men are afraid of commitment, yet the bulk of divorces are initiated by the woman. Funny how that works. I used to believe in starting a family; I was even lucky enough to grow up in a two-parent household, so I can’t even claim I was personally scarred somehow. But I’ve seen enough carnage amongst my friends and coworkers. I’ve no intention of being someone’s walking ATM and sperm-donor, or a prop in their ‘starter marriage.’
Man up and be a father? This line of arguement is a crock. With divorce rampant there’s a good chance we will be shut out from much of our children’s life, even if we’re willing to move heaven and earth to be there for them. The standard line is to start talking about deadbeat dads. But what about mothers who use the kids as hostages in divorce? Even if our ex-wife is a saint, we’re still going to be a casual presence at best. And if she’s even slightly vindictive, all bets are off in the family court system. Me, I like kids, and think I could do a damn good job as a father. Even thought about adopting once, but considering that the official party line is that males (and fathers) are both superfluous and evil, they’d probably drop me on the sex offender registry just for inquiring.
Man up and be a role model? What’s that? Oh, you mean old/dead white men. Why would anyone want us to emulate history’s greatest villains? Men (boys and adults alike) are bombarded with constant degradation, told we are inferior, worthless, stupid, evil, incompetent, untrustworthy subhumans. This is echoed 24/7 by our teachers, the media, the courts and our legislatures. It is even echoed by some of our own parents, who been wholly brainwashed by the constant misandrist drumbeat. In many jurisdictions and proceedings, we have been stripped of “innocent until proven guilty” (usually just customarily, but occasionally it’s explicitly enshrined in law) . I suppose a ‘real man’ would spend his days crusading against this, but I despise arguing with tittering fools and don’t need the aggravation. Besides, we can accomplish a great deal (and have, and will) simply by withdrawing our participation and our consent.
Man up and work hard? Sure. But for who? Work overtime to provide a comfortable life for your wife and kids? Who then leave because ‘you’re never there’? Work overtime to be an economic engine for the cash-strapped welfare and social security systems? Why should I feel compelled to contribute to a ponzi scheme that I’ll never collect on in my own retirement? My career is proceeding quite well, thank you very much, and I am pursuing it because it enriches (financially and emotionally) ME, not someone else.
Man up and conform to societal expectations? Half the economic woes of these past few years can be traced to the institutionalization of keeping up with the Jones. Buy the huge house, buy the yard toys, buy the RV, take that vacation abroad, be seen at the trendy new spot, buy the latest Apple gadget… Socially and economically, we have no interest in keeping up appearances. I can live very comfortably and fund my interests on as little as $20k a year. I have plenty of leisure time to enjoy my life, friends and hobbies without working myself into an early grave or stressing about where the next loan payment for my status symbol is going to come from.
The constant haranging to ‘man up’ conjures up the image of a jolly WWI general, shouting “Fix bayonets and over the top lads! The machine guns can’t get you all!” Forget it, we’re done being sacrificial lambs for someone else. Men aren’t manning up, but we ARE waking up. It’s a rigged game that we refuse to play, and no amount of shaming language is going to get us off the bench. Want more metaphors? You may have heard the term ‘marriage strike,’ but it goes beyond that. We’re not failing to ‘man up,’ we’re just working to rule. Work slowdowns will continue until management chooses to negotiate fairly and transparently; too bad they’ve got nothing to bring to the table.
Yes, we’re a bunch of losers. THE losers. We lost. Feminists, welfare-statists, the rest… You won. We concede defeat. You got everything you wanted. You’ve been saying for years that you don’t need us, and we’ll gladly oblige. We’re MGTOWs, Men Going Their Own Way. We don’t want to fight you. We don’t NEED to fight you. If anything, we should be thanking you. We’re free of being beasts of others burdens. We’ve realized there is no lock on the cell door. We’ve taken the Red Pill. You can’t hurt us, and you have nothing we want.
Now, go away and leave us alone.
- Rob
Um, all this psychodrama is very cute, but I can tell it in simpler terms: societal expectations.
Up to, oh, I guess the 1960s and the invention of the feminazi, women were in their traditional roles more often than not. Maybe they were coerced, that’s not my department. But they expected to be married and raise a family, and so did most men. Just the way things were. Priorities, y’know?
For better or worse, those expectations are now changed. We gave many opportunities and high praise to women who make it on their own – and welfare to single women who choose (for good reasons or bad) to have and/or raise kids on their own. Welfare may come from your tax receipts or garnishing your paycheck, really what’s the diff?
Society has changed expectations. Each side responds to the new rules of the game. Maybe society wants fewer marriages, fewer kids. Overpopulated already, y’know, have you seen the traffic? Maybe society expects people not to marry, gives them incentives not to marry. Maybe a lot of that women’s rights stuff backfires, surprise surprise.
In all of this, I guess I agree: Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.” I guess some still do, and those are the ones who marry, though frankly they also have to settle 98% of the time, they can’t wait to meet a rockstar before they surrender to their femininity. But it’s really not settling, the marriage game is played between equals, when it’s played seriously.
Modern women want to get married (to be sure) but they don’t want be (stay) married when the honeymoon “zing” is over because marriage is a “relationship” and not a “commitment” nowadays (and relationships are always “fulfilling” or “it’s over,” you know). Then, even if they “found someone else” and left after creating children with him, they demand their spouse’s wealth and continuing alimony/child support. Modern men sure don’t want to marry… even if they get to be the studly second toyboy and beneficiary of the first husband’s hard work– she did it to him, she’ll do it to you! Any suprise?
P.S. Article came up on the PJM Most Popular today, so I commented a lot today. (Just saw it was from Nov, I admit.)
I am 32yr old single guy, decent looking with a stable life.. however I have never been involved in a serious relationship(longest 3 mnths) and never will, got my vasectomy done 7 years ago, I just cant trust women(in case ur wondering, no! a woman has never cheated on me or broken my trust).. I just look at whats happening around me thats all.. guys losing their houses, alimony, child support, unhappy married couples, dead end sex life, married men coming up to me and saying ‘how lucky i am to be single’..
So needless to say im a MGHOW and plan to stay like this for as long as i can.
Just have to stay focused and avoid societal brainwashing when it comes to marriage and relationships, and if i do decide to settle down(maybe when im in my 50s) it will probably be with an eastern or south american woman.
Some of these comments are really hostile towardswomen. If you all think women have that kind of power to cause a man to lose his manhood, it’s because he’s dumb enough to allow it to happen in the first
place. Real men want real women who are strong and has control of her emotions. Real women want real men who are strong and has control of his emotions and act like little boys who want to throw temper tantrums cuz they can’t control grown women.
Sorry I meant real women don’t want little boys throwing temper tantrums just cuz they can’t control grown women.