coComments related to novaseeker

"I mean, maybe that can be att

2009-07-07T23:04:14.024+02:00

"I mean, maybe that can be attributed to gender differences in some cases, but for the most part, I think it’s some sick gender war nonsense people are stirring up, and it isn’t fair to boys/men who can do just as well in that field." @Mandy -- Indeed. As doug said so well, there should not be artificial barriers either way, but neither should there be the assumption that something is amiss unless it is 50/50. I think it's closer to the truth that men are generally better at some things, and women are generally better at others -- even within the academy. That doesn't mean "to the exclusion of the other sex" -- it just means that we shouldn't expect every field to be 50/50. That's why the current charge of the feminists about the STEM fields is so off base. It assumes that the dominance of men in these fields is due to discrimination, without really caring a whit that women dominate literature, psychology, sociology and so on. The focus should be promoting people to do well at what they are good at, not artificial parity quotas. ================== "Most women want love, stability and family. They want men who will stand by them through thick and thin (literally, LOL), and Western culture right now is NOT producing that type of man. Western culture is producing PUAs and alpha wananbes rather than loyal, loving, stable providers. So why should women not focus on career and financial independence when their is no guarantee?" @whitegirl -- The only way that changes is if the family law is put back together. It was feminism, remember, that wanted easy divorce, and we can see why -- women are the ones who are divorcing their husbands 70+% of the time. If women were so serious about stability and family, this would simply not be the case. It's *not* the case that most of these divorces are because the husbands are philanderers or abusers or addicts. If you talk to marriage counselors, it's because women are bored, have fallen out of love, and want to find another man, while taking the kids with them. That is the antithesis of wanting family and stability. The memes are all over the culture now from 40 something women: marriage is boring, romance and excitement are where it's at and so on. Sandra Tsing Loh wrote about this last month in The Atlantic about how her and her suburban SWPL friends are all bored to death with their "kitchen bitch" husbands. Cristina Nehring just published a book saying that women should eschew marriage, commitment and stability for passion, romance, ane excitement -- no joke. The problem in western culture is not that men have abandoned families and responsibility, it's that women do not want a stable lifestyle any longer, are very restless in marriages in their 30s and 40s, are interested in pursuing other men for passion and excitement, and are initiating the lion's share of divorces as a result -- divorces they are encouraged to seek due to the wildly imbalanced family law's tilt in favor of women who are mothers. Even when they find stable, responsible men, they get bored when their own sex drive revs up in the 30s and 40s, and divorce in large numbers. Sorry, but pegging the current situation in the west on the behavior of men is beyond laughable.

"Bringing this (the problem) t

2009-07-07T21:48:33.539+02:00

"Bringing this (the problem) to the attention to men is the first step then. Outside of this blog how can this be accomplished by those of you who do get it?" @aoefe -- Well the internet has certainly been a boon. Places like this one and other blogs, forums, and YouTube are reaching more and more men. Another thing is to add it into the discourse in your own life, carefully. That is, don't bring up men's issues with your female boss (although she may be like you, she may very well not be) .. but bring them up with friends and so on. I know I slip in things into conversation with people all the time -- not artificially but just with the flow of the conversation. If you can manage that, you can at least get some of the memes out there. It's working, slowly. Some of our memes are popping up in the MSM now, periodically. And comments left on MSM websites are often bristling with our memes. Even an unhelpful article like Reihan Salam's article in the current Foreign Policy magazine help to raise the issue (even if the solution proposed is incorrect). There are many ways to spread these ideas, but people need to be willing to do so.

"Here it’s certainly recognize

2009-07-07T21:17:20.814+02:00

"Here it’s certainly recognized as to what the current issues are, much discussion has been had on what brought about the problems, as well there have been predictions on the future fall of civilization but is there any consensus on solutions? This is not meant as a criticism. I’m truly interested in what the actual goals are (for men) and how you guys think they could be accomplished. Side note – Cohesiveness allowed the women’s movement to start, it’s pretty fractured now but they made huge strides in the meantime. " @aoefe -- By far the biggest issue we have is rampant, raging disunity among men when it comes to any issue involving women. It may appear that we have some kind of basic unity here on some key issues, but among men as a whole -- no way. Most men are dripping with chivalry and steeped in the culture of de facto post feminism. Not ideologues, of course, but simply accepting of the status quo, and governed by the culturally imprinted instinct to defend women against any criticism from any men. The disunity among men regarding these issues is by far the biggest issue we face, and the only way we can address it is by raising awareness. We can't even begin to talk about goals until more men realize that there is a problem to begin with, and we're not there yet.

"That is the whole issue, its

2009-07-07T21:10:08.710+02:00

"That is the whole issue, its the men who have abandoned their masculine core. Its fun to criticise the strong women in this case but it has not been created by them. They are only filling the void, which is what women will always do, its what they do. I would like you to talk more about the men and why they have retreated, why they are emasculated?" @Graham Phoenix -- There are a few reasons. One is, as doug has pointed out, feminist ideology is very, very deep in the SWPL population described here by Roissy. It's a part of the air they breathe, and they have been indoctrinated with that since college if not earlier. The ideas are ubiquitous, and they amount to a radical devaluation of men and all that is masculine. The ideology, in fact, sees masculinity as being toxic and a social pathology. Another is that many men do not relish conflict with women. Psychologists will tell you that men and women have very different physiological responses to conflicts with each other -- men tend to "flood" with angst, their heart rate soars, and they get very stressed., None of these is measured in women. The speculation is that men are wired to seek female approval, and are stressed at female disapproval, whereas women are wired to manipulate men by means of that. So when women changed the tune of the song in terms of what they were demanding, many men simply complied, to avoid stressful conflict with women. When women are demanding emasculated men, which General Grrlpower types do, then men will do what is asked of them. Yet another is the pervasive continuation of chivalry. Not holding open doors, but rather the general tilt that favors women and their concerns over men and their concerns. When you couple that general tilt with feminism, you get a society that is dripping with disdain for men, masculinity and anything manly. All of this has impacted very strongly the SWPL population, because it is the SPWLs that are most heavily indoctrinated by feminism, and it is among the SWPLs that more women will demand emasculated men as *husbands*/*partners*, while preferring to *bed* unreconstructed masculine men.

"I think perhaps you’ve been t

2009-07-07T20:21:38.347+02:00

"I think perhaps you’ve been taken in by the illusion that all men should have access to whatever woman they want all the time. That doesn’t happen anywhere." @Whitegirl -- Yes, but the point is that in a sexual free market, women drift up the male food chain, and concentrate at higher levels, generally speaking, than their male mate value equivalent peers. Because they can. Women have sexual access to men above their peer level in a sexual free market with no rules, because men will shag women below their peer value for variety and simply because it is available. So when you introduce a free market system, many men are left with a much smaller number of available peer level mates, because they have drifted up the chain -- because they can. Let's assume we have 2000 men and women, all ranked from 1-2000. In a system of monogamy, people would be forced to mate with people around their own mate value level, because women cannot drift up -- that is forbidden. If you free that up to an open sexual market, woman 1250, say, would, at least in the casual sex market, rather float up to man 500 than she would stick with guys in the 1250 range. And guy 500 will take woman 1250 as an occasional sex partner because she is new, and different, and available, and willing, and he has an open slot on Monday nights anyway. Where does this leave man 1250? Well, that depends on how many women around the 1250 level also opt to do what woman 1250 has done. If enough of them do, that means the remaining women in the 1250 level have an extraordinary amount of increased mate value relative to men in the 1250 level, simply because they are available, and are preferable to women below the 1250 level. So a man at the 1250 level needs to engage in a fierce competition with other 1250 level men for the remaining women at that level who have not drifted up the chain, or opt to go for a woman below his own mate value. And there you can see the fundamental problem. Men either need to fiercely compete for women of their own level whose value is inflated (making them more expensive) simply because many of their sisters have decamped for higher level men. Or he can resort to a woman below his own mate value. Because of the drift up that happens in a sexual free market, many men at each midlevel and lower rung will be forced to resort downward, while many women of their own level can go upward -- something which creates a crap ton of resentment among men. And of course many men won't resort for going downward, but will simply not mate. The issue isn't that men are all going for the top women. The issue, rather, is that women of the midlevels are opting to go up, out of their own level, because they can. And when they do so, that leaves the men in the level where they left twisting in the wind.

"The trade is, because of the

2009-07-07T19:41:16.638+02:00

"The trade is, because of the “feminist movment” and the “sexual revolution”, as well as birth control, women are available for you to meet in clubs and in the public sphere. These meetings can often turn into one-night stands for your or even short term relationships. Are you willing to give up having so many possibilities open to you in exchange for women going back to traditional ways where they marry younger and are hence, not out and about as single women on birth control in the public sphere?" @whitegirl -- Ah, but there's the rub: those "benefits" only inure to a small minority of men: natural alphas and other guys with Game. The vast majority of men lose out in a system that does not feature hard monogamy as the norm. Feminism used your precise argument to sell itself to men in the 70s: hey, look at all the sexual oppportunities you'll have! The reality is that men have much less sexual opportunity than women do, and when you make the sex market into a free market, the women who are in the market for casual sex and short term relationships tend to cluster around a small number of men (due to hypergamy, which is even more of a strong factor in female selection when selecting for short term or sex), and most men simply do not get laid at all.

"So, from where I sit, we have

2009-07-07T19:36:22.308+02:00

"So, from where I sit, we have two options: the Taliban route, or the route I’m suggesting, where we basically accept the new dispensation of time, and adapt accordingly. Its really that simple, guys." @Obsidian -- There is a third route -- sit on the sidelines smoking a cigar while you watch the ship of western civilization careen over niagara falls. I expect a good number of men will take this route, in various ways, in the decades ahead by simply withdrawing and opting out. That process of withdrawal will not be halted by pointing them at hookers. I agree that the Taliban solution is not going to happen -- but unless the society finds a way to harness the investment of men in themselves and the future of society, the outcome will be that society is overrun by a civilization that has not destroyed the core institution of civilization: monogamous marriage. It may be that PA is correct that the elites will switch course before that happens. But the only way they could do that would be to reinstitute monogamy, which would require force and therefore seems unlikely. Much more likely is a gradual decline and then either a takeover by another civilization with strong marriage institutions, or the replacement of this one with another successor civilization "in place" that is no longer "western civilization" as we know it, but a successor that features a strong marriage institution. Freeing up prostitution is not going to save western civilization.

"‘Make accused rapists prove c

2009-07-07T17:24:38.908+02:00

"‘Make accused rapists prove consent’: experts Two legal experts want to see changes to Sweden sex crimes laws to require a man accused of rape to prove he had the consent of the woman with whom he had sex." @Stu -- This is also being proposed in feminist legal circles in other countries as well, including the US. The idea is to switch sexual power even more in favor of women - so that women have complete and total, totalitarian control over sex, just as they currently do over reproduction. Jessica Valenti edited a collection of feminist essays on this (released in 2008) called "Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape". The basic idea is to change the law to require demonstrating consent in order to, in turn, change the way the bedroom dynamic works, such that women have complete and decisive control there -- such that sex is only legitimate if the woman either initiates or clearly and affirmatively consents in an active way. Of course from the legal perspective, this would be unconstitutional in the US (it would presume the accused guilty of rape unless he can prove consent), but I wouldn't expect that to be seriously considered as a block to this kind of change to the rape laws. After all, rape shield laws are also unconstitutional. ====== "So, while we make the case for Game as being Man’s Last Best Hope for Poon in this world, we also have to take up the very real problem of what to do w/the millions of Men who simply don’t have the skills, or interest, in wooing the panties off today’s Woman. And since it is virtually impossible to get Women to address this issue, owing to their biological realities, its something we Men are gonna have to get the ball rolling on-at least for now. Maybe, hopefully, caring Women will join in, too, and help us legalize prostitution and other things to help these guys out. But its something we need to take seriously." @Obsidian -- I think that the bigger issue is finding something to motivate these guys -- many of whom are the backbone for running society, the economy and so on -- to keep on investing in themselves and society. I'm skeptical that porn and hookers can achieve that. While I think as many guys should learn the basics of Game as possible, the idea that relationships with women are a luxury reserved for the naturally dominant or those with Game is a recipe for long-term disaster. As you point out, many men simply won't do well, even with Game. This is why I suspect what we are looking at is a gradual decline, no matter what. I doubt that porn, hookers and sex bots will motivate these masses of males to invest in themselves or the broader society to the extent we need them to in order to progress. Unless monogamy is restored (which seems doubtful, since it has never happened in other circumstances historically when it has been relaxed), I don't forsee anything other than a gradual decline, and the eventual restoration of monogamy once the culture morphs into something new.

Very good article, Whiskey. I

2009-07-07T16:40:10.942+02:00

Very good article, Whiskey. It's the rise of the internet, really. TV morphed and skewed more female as men were increasingly decamping into other forms of media and entertainment, such as the internet and video games, as ironrails says. I agree with you, Whiskey, that this is unlikely to turn around in the years ahead. If anything, the internet is really picking up steam as a place where men feel comfortable. I've often thought that this was because the male spaces in the real world were taken away from men. And then TV shows were taken away as well, gradually. The internet remains, though, as a kind of el-dorado, where anyone can express any view. This is attractive to men in a culture where they feel hemmed in, in terms of what they are permitted to express in public. I don't see the fascination for broadcast TV coming back to men in any significant way, really -- it can't possibly compare to what is on the internet of interest to men.

It's an interesting hypothesis

2009-07-06T22:40:17.847+02:00

It's an interesting hypothesis that arousal is protective in women -- what it means, though, is that physical arousal in women may be completely unrelated to desire. If that's true, then that's a huge sex difference between men and women.

@S. -- That's true, but the

2009-07-06T21:33:40.746+02:00

@S. -- That's true, but the interesting thing about the Times article was that it didn't register male arousal, physically, based on male homoerotic images other than for gay men. That was very different from what was registered among the female subjects. That makes me think that the idea that there is any significant amount repressed/closeted male homoerotic curiosity is rather unlikely. It's possible that the repression runs so deep that it is simply unarousing for such men to view male homoerotic images, but if that's the case, then I'd have to wonder if it is still appropriate to consider it to be a case of repression or closeting. The most interesting thing about the NYT article was the quite marked difference in physical arousal response between straight-identifying men and women based on the kind of erotic stimuli.

It's a good idea. Right now

2009-07-06T20:56:35.676+02:00

It's a good idea. Right now what we have are blogs and discussion forums, and it's all very diffuse and uncoordinated. That has good aspects to it, in terms of allowing for different points of view, but it also has some bad aspects -- lack of coordination, a tendency to slip into radicalism and so on. The main obstacle would probably be getting consistent copy, in terms of articles and so on. I think you'd want to be shooting to be more consistent in quality than a typical blog, and also with more varied opinions and styles. From the business perspective, I think this kind of thing builds slowly. You need eyeballs first before you can monetize it very well, I think. Other men's sites, like MND for example, could be used as springboard platforms to get the initial seeding of eyes there. You want links in well-trafficked men's sites and so on to get that initial seeding in. In terms of keeping people there, as you can see from most of the online material, a common way to do that is to create a kind of community by allowing participation by the readers in commenting. This can draw people back to a site during the time between new articles being published -- in a way that is similar to how some of the more popular blogs work. But the difference, again, is that for a magazine, you would have a more systematic thematic approach, probably a broader range of topics being addressed, and the views of more than one writer (which some blogs have as well, but which most do not).

"The idea of homosexuality bei

2009-07-06T20:51:48.192+02:00

"The idea of homosexuality being played out by choice is silly. Men don’t experiment with other men because being masculine is at odds with a submissive role which requires penetration. I don’t think the idea of being feminine is necessarily at odds with bisexuality or lesbianism; there are a lot of lipstick femmes out there." @S. -- Hmmm. I don't think there is a pent up curiosity inside men about gay sex which is repressed due to fear of appearing to be unmasculine, or due to some kind of cognitive dissonance inside men about that. Men really are generally (other than the small% who are gay) not curious about gay sex, or interested in other men sexually -- we're not as fluid as women are in this area, and it's a difference between men and women. There are plenty of unmasculine even kind of effeminate type of men who are not at all gay-curious or attracted to men at all.

I always thought the LUG pheno

2009-07-06T20:18:35.816+02:00

I always thought the LUG phenomenon was more abut (1) fashionable lesbianism, (2) avoiding complicated romantic relationships with young men to focus on studies, (3) rebellion, (4) limiting unwanted male attention. Feminists have not been shy about recruiting young women, but I don't think the women are motivated by fears of being raped, but by other factors -- mostly social and, in some cases, political/ideological.

"Interesting perspective on fe

2009-07-06T17:44:10.696+02:00

"Interesting perspective on feminists believing sex to be prositution. I read an article on Nova’s blog the other day which backs up this claim. It was a study on feminist type women who’d been paid whores. Some of the women/whores were angry at the wives of men/johns for providing ‘free’ servicing to their husbands. They were thrilled they could remove dollars from the household to punish these women. So yes they viewed sex as prostitution and something that should demand high payment. I find that sick thinking." @aoefe -- It's the idea that sex is a form of currency running in one direction. As mandy been here a while points out, this is one of the core perspectives of the radical feminist leadership: men want sex from women, and women should be compensated for this --> there should be no "sex for free", because if women "give" men sex "for free", then the sexual power that (according to this theory) all women have over all men, as class, is diminished. In other words, in this view (which is all about gender power), women who provide sex "for free" are like scabs violating a union strike --> the sisterhood is the union in this case, and the exhortation is for a kind of sisterly solidarity to *not* give away sex for free, but instead to consistently require specific compensation for sex in order to maximize the natural lynchpin of power that women, as a class, have over men, as a class --> sexual access. It's a very materialistic world-view, of course, but that's to be expected. The radical feminist leaders were almost all very sympathetic towards Marxism, and its radically materialist worldview. And so that's how you come across highly educated women (doctors, PhDs and so on) moonlighting as prostitutes and using feminist materialist ideology to back up their ideas about sex as empowerment for women by enforcing specific financial compensation on men as the price for sex. Of course it goes without saying that a model of sexuality which is radically materialist is not going to make most *women* happy -- but the radicals saw that merely as an issue of a need for "consciousness raising", so that women would, in fact, realize the wisdom of materializing their sexuality so that women could exercise decisive power over men. And, to get back to the core of the thread discussion, this is why we saw the feminist movement focus like a laser-beam on extending rape laws to cover all kinds of situations that had not previously been covered. The point of these extensions was not to protect women, but rather instead to dramatically increase the power of women over sex. The "core rape" crime is not something that has been controversial for a long, long time -- it has generally not been considered legitimate for men to use their physical power to "take" sex in that way. But by extending the cover of rape laws to things like date rape, and by enacting things like rape shield laws which make it much harder to cross-examine accusers and so on, effectively feminists increased the *scope* of rape, and the ability to falsely accuse, both of which substantially increase female power over sex by increasingly limiting male behavior. And this trend is not stopping. People like Valenti are now arguing that the standard of "no means no" is in itself not good enough, and that an affirmative statement of "yes" from the woman needs to be present in order for a sex act not to be a rape. Under this standard, any man who had sex with a woman could be accused of rape, and would need to demonstrate, in order to avoid conviction, that the woman positively and vocally consented to the act before it began. Why do we see insanity like that? Because all of the claptrap about rape is not, and has never been, about protecting women. It has always been about expanding the already substantial control women have over sex, and ever narrowing men's room for agency and action in this area. The goal -- as it was for reproduction (and has been achieved in that area) -- is complete totalitarian control of sexuality by women. Rape law is an important means to that end for feminists.

The issue isn't the education

2009-07-01T18:31:20.351+02:00

The issue isn't the education of women. It's good to have women educated and contributing to society. The issue is that in order to do this the family has been ivirtually destroyed through the vandalism of family law that has taken place over the last few decades. When you mess with family law, as we have done, such that fatherhood is marginalized to a large degree, what happens is that men stop participating. Men slack off. Men withdraw. Men become less ambitious and so on. The main motivators for men have always been children, family and, by derivation, the larger social fabric as an extension of that. When we fucked with the family law to free up women, we also greatly weakened fatherhood (which depends on family to exist properly), which in turn weakens men's interest in investing in themselves and the broader society. While we can speculate about whether a society can progress without educated women (and I think it's better to have educated women), I don't there there's any doubt that a society cannot progress without men who are deeply invested in the success of the society. That investment comes, mostly, from being ensconced in families with their own children -- precisely the social model that has been very precisely undermined over the past several decades. The result is that men adapt to the new situation, spend less time and effort investing in themselves, almost none investing in the broader society, and progress becomes harder, not easier.

"Women tend to think ahead mor

2009-07-01T18:20:57.170+02:00

"Women tend to think ahead more and choose LTRs more on the basis of who they think they can turn them into. The preferred hunk of marble will have lots of resources to share and have lots of rough surfaces to be polished." @Cliff -- Probably true in fact, but also probably what leads to many relationship disasters. It's disastrous to "bet" on who you think you can turn someone into, rather than assessing them based on who they are. I agree that women do this all the time, much to their detriment really.

"the problem is because some w

2009-06-30T20:58:45.389+02:00

"the problem is because some women can fuck the alphas when they’re young and attractive, they think they can eventually marry one of them, one significantly above their natural pair-bonding range. this is the source of their pain and confusion. but others among them realize they’re not going to end up with a brad pitt clone, just as most men realize they’re not going to end up with a 9. that doesn’t mean they can’t be happy with who they end up with, as long as that mate exhibits generally masculine qualities and LTR game – it just means being realistic, which most people are able to do." @maurice -- Yes. The most problematic ones are the ones who were riding the alpha cock carousel in their 20s. As you say, these often develop an alpha-cock entitlement syndrome, such that when the time comes to actually find someone for an LTR/marriage, they are aiming well out of their LTR league. I think at some point it dawns on them that the alphacock guys will more than happily bed them, but would never commit to them -- in other words that there are two markets: the casual sex market, on the one hand, and the LTR/commitment market, on the other. Realizing that their ability to stretch "up" is more limited in the latter than in the former can make some of these women rather bitter, and also make them a bad risk for cheating and divorce. But having said that, there are many other women who are realistic, and who know that committed LTRs are most often going to be with well-matched partners. I honestly think DA prefers to think the way he does so that he can avoid doing the work required to attract a compatible mate in his league. If you convince yourself that doing this has no value, it absolves you of the need to do it, I think. "you should just bite the bullet and spring for a professional dominatrix." @Lance -- Chuckle. Now that would be funny.

" Mike, I agree completely. Co

2009-06-16T17:14:33.143+02:00

" Mike, I agree completely. Contra Amneus, I don't think the good of society is well served by coming down hard on women who sleep around and failing to do the same for men." Certainly. Men need to be slut shamed, too. The main issue with that, though, is that this will largely be alpha shaming, because by and large the male sluts are either natural alphas or synthetic alphas (PUAs). I have nothing against that at all, but we can expect obnoxious pushback from the male sluts.

Good one! Oprah clearly was

2009-06-13T18:05:31.721+02:00

Good one! Oprah clearly was boosting "the lesbian option" with that article, shamelessly as well.

"Since the relationship, altho

2009-06-12T18:53:22.196+02:00

"Since the relationship, although sexual and escalating, hasn’t been going on for long and the L-word hasn’t been used, she’s supposed to account for her movements … why?" @Cliff -- The relationship is described as having been on an escalating trajectory. She also said she was going to call and did not. It isn't about accounting for her movements but about being considerate and following through. I think that the best thing to do, as I said above, would be to not call her back on Monday. Let her chase a bit. If she calls on Tuesday, pick up the phone and don't mention the weekend. Mentioning the weekend makes you look controlling, creepy, desperate and clingy -- all decidedly non-alpha -- it's a big mistake to mention the weekend. Let her do that, or not. If she doesn't mention the weekend, she gets thrown back in the pond (or retained as an FWB type thing if she merits that) because she's been rather inconsiderate about the whole thing and is not worth the effort, particularly when taken together with the other negatives listed in her description. If she *does* mention the trip, then there's a need to assess the veracity of what she is saying -- hard to do on the phone, really, but possible. If she doesn't call again at all, no loss, and the question answers itself.

"Plural marriage, especially b

2009-06-12T01:44:20.177+02:00

"Plural marriage, especially by the powerful, has been the rule throughout human history." And plural marriage cannot be denied if gay marriage becomes normative. There is no logical distinction to be made between polygamy and gay marriage -- the argument in favor of each is that tradition (in our culture) is irrelevant -- and in fact, as you rightly point out, polygamy actually *is* traditional in other cultures, whereas gay marriage is not traditional in any culture. Once gay marriage becomes normative, polygamy follows quickly on its heels, and a major case on that is already working its way through the Canadian legal system. The slopes are getting pretty slippery.

Of course she's hiding somethi

2009-06-11T20:52:10.996+02:00

Of course she's hiding something, but why should you care? She is a less than stellar candidate for a girlfriend whom you have been seeing for 6 weeks. Over the weekend you should have been pursuing other opportunities. Do not answer the phone. If she calls on Monday, maybe answer or send her an innocuous text, ignoring the weekend completely. If she offers up what happened, evaluate in person whether she is telling the truth or not, but if she also ignores the unexplained weekend just add it to the seemingly growing list of negatives about this woman and pursue others. At six weeks and with so many negatives already, this one should be thrown back in the pond, not obsessed over like some high schooler.

"Even in the past I'm not conv

2009-06-11T15:49:20.281+02:00

"Even in the past I'm not convinced that the marriages were actually working that much. Sure they married younger and remained married, but if divorce was as acceptable back then as it is now they would have divorced at the same rates we do now or higher. The only reason divorce rates were lower was the stigma against it." Actually, I think that people simply viewed marriage differently. It was not viewed as primarily a means of self-fulfillment, but rather as a commitment around children and home. Marriages all have ups and downs, but in the past people expected this and plowed through the downs because they were committed to each other and to their kids and home. The current culture has transformed marriage into something that exists primarily to please an individual. That's why divorce rates are so high. Any institution that is based around pleasing two individuals at any point in time will be inherently unstable, because what pleases people changes over time. That vision of marriage is in large part what has killed marriage (and it underlies our attitude towards things like no-fault divorce as well). Marriage is no longer viewed as a commitment you plough through, but rather a happiness accessory that you discard when you tire of it.

"A man who makes you tremor li

2009-06-10T17:10:59.966+02:00

"A man who makes you tremor like an earthquake may not make the best father for your children." Chic -- Indeed. But isn't the most elegant solution to this issue either divorce or cuckolding, or both? It seems to me that the precise dilemma women face -- that between a good male parental investor, on the one hand, and a guy who really rings their bell, on the other -- is not really solvable without a good bit of compromise. Which is probably why marriages are so relatively brief today.

Interesting article, Whiskey.

2009-06-09T19:15:08.014+02:00

Interesting article, Whiskey. Isn't the rise of the internet and non-mainstream media the real cause of the decline of newspapers? I agree that few people read them -- because there are so many other sources of information available today. Information that can be tailored to your own niche interests much more than a general publication newspaper can. The main issue I see is that the non-MSM material can be interesting, but there are no standards for veracity, no fact checking standards and so on. It's all like one big Wikipedia, which is not necessarily a good thing.

Apostate is simply basking in

2009-06-09T17:37:53.254+02:00

Apostate is simply basking in her post-Islamic glow, and confusing Islamic treatment of women with Western treatment of women, more generally. A very good response, EW.

Good stuff -- I will have to t

2009-06-09T17:18:04.053+02:00

Good stuff -- I will have to take a look.

"Seems that girls get more exc

2009-06-06T19:46:01.169+02:00

"Seems that girls get more excited about going to strip clubs than guys are. I think its a chance for them to explore their sexuality while pretending that they are doing it for their man." Erik -- The strippers like it when women are there -- many of them enjoy it more, from what I have read, due to a disproportionate percentage of strippers being either lesbian leaning bisexuals or outright lesbians (of the lipstick variety). I suspect as you do that the women who enjoy attending strip clubs with their boyfriends or husbands are bisexual, perhaps not openly.

I was in Vegas back in 2005.

2009-06-06T19:43:12.761+02:00

I was in Vegas back in 2005. It struck me as a rather unique place. Glitzy mall/casinos open 24/7. Tons of people everywhere. And the near ubiquitous waft of sin. It's kind of like sin city, really. The sexual aspect was noticeable, as you point out as well, but to me it was the overall hedonism of the place that was most striking. It's an interesting place to visit though.

"Excellent breakdown, and I te

2009-06-05T20:13:14.611+02:00

"Excellent breakdown, and I tell you, trying to have this kind of discussion w/Women is extremely difficult; they become defensive to an extreme, even angry, and of course, because I’m not laying any blame at the feet of the Menz, they get mad at that. Of course, when I remind them, kindly but firmly, that the Female always chooses who gets lucky and who doesn’t, the response is… Silence. How about you? Have you experienced anything similar?" @Obsidian -- Yes. It's typically anger at the suggestion, then usually a response along the lines of "so, it's okay for men, but not for women..." (anger again) and then when the point about opportunity disparities is made, the response is usually "but women don't behave like that because then you men will shame us for being sluts". When the disappearance of slut shaming is pointed out, this is generally denied, again in anger. I have never seen a woman once admit to the vast power they have in the casual sex market over almost all men.

@Obsidian -- I suspect she in

2009-06-05T19:19:15.263+02:00

@Obsidian -- I suspect she included that in her book as a shaming device. The trouble with her book is that it gets difficult at times to separate out the good information in it from the ideological programming, and the clear position of anger she is coming from. She's terribly angry at men, as most feminists are, and although she tries to conceal it, sections like that one pop out as being examples to lash out at men. I also know well that women do not like a cock that bangs against their cervix. That's pretty well known. But, as I say, Langley is out there advocating the reverse -- probably to shame men.

"It’s plausible. But is this b

2009-06-05T19:10:27.028+02:00

"It’s plausible. But is this based on anything concrete." @Doug1 -- Just basing on what she has said in her books about her life and the life of other women she knows in her age range (40s). She is a cougar and she goes on for 5 pages or so about how women share notes about cock size, and how they all prefer bigger cocks, and how a woman will give a man a "consolation" BJ if she decides his penis is too small to be a good fuck and so on. Now part of that was clearly intended to shame men about penis size, because Langley is quite the feminist and quite irate at men and what she sees as double standards in terms of beauty -- so there is an ideological aspect as well. But she claims, at least, that it is true.

"Very true, and the great para

2009-06-05T19:07:04.597+02:00

"Very true, and the great paradox is that people are duped by the feminists into thinking these things make women more equal." @Arpagus -- What happened was that sexual freedom was what was looked at, and not sexual opportunity. So, under the old regime, women had less sexual freedom due to the double standard. They hated that, saw it as being unequal (and it was), and rebelled against it, throwing it off in the feminist sexual revolution. However, sexual freedom is only a part of the story. Men had, under the old regime, more sexual freedom than women did, but only a small number of men had a lot of sexual opportunity to do anything with that freedom. In other words, the number of men who women will fuck for fun is a very small number. Women, on the other hand, have tons of sexual opportunity relative to men of their same level at every level other than the top. So when we made sexual freedom "equal", the result was anything but equal because women have much greater sexual opportunity, on average, than men do. That is, it is, on average, much, much, much easier for a woman to get laid than it is for an equivalent man, again at all levels other than the top. So the "duping" came from the idea that freedom was all that mattered, when in fact there can be no equality when there is not even the faintest kind of equality of opportunity in the casual sex market.

"What happened is the Four Sir

2009-06-05T19:02:00.260+02:00

"What happened is the Four Sirens, as Roissy likes to call them, happened. This made it possible for Women to go to their most primal selves, and make choices based on that." @Obsidian -- This is exactly right. What we are seeing is what happens when women are given the ability (economic independence, no social stigma, absolute control over fertility) to think with their pussies. And when many women think with their pussies, you see what we see today --> a huge increase in single motherhood because women are sexing the men that best please their pussies. In addition, a significant number of women is simply foregoing children. And that's not just career ice queens. Michelle Langley is an example of that -- tarted up with plastic surgery and botox, she chases younger alphas based on cock size, among other things, because it pleases her pussy to do so. When women are permitted to choose men based on the demands of their pussy alone, you see what we see today. Of course not *all* women are like that -- that's why we see pretty high marriage numbers still. But there are quite a few who are, and almost all of the women who hang out in clubs and bars are like that. Most men without Game have no chance in hell.

"That last was short and sweet

2009-06-05T05:16:35.560+02:00

"That last was short and sweet and really good." @doug1 -- Thanks.

"When will this ridiculous cha

2009-06-05T05:01:41.713+02:00

"When will this ridiculous chauvinism stop, that says you have to hate feminists and do exactly their opposite to combat them, instead of simply ignoring them and discovering your own theories?" @gai This won't work. Feminist memes dominate. They need to be countered. That is shoveling gravel for men. We have our own theories. You need to read more. But we also cannot afford to ignore the dominant paradigm -- which is misandrist feminism, full stop, building upon chivalry and using that to torture men in this culture.

"BTW, LR’s child is very hands

2009-06-05T01:21:04.711+02:00

"BTW, LR’s child is very handsome. I suppose his Daddy was, too." @joel -- He would have to be. LR said herself she was very picky physically, displaying again her masculine aspects. @Whiskey -- I agree with Thursday. LR was a stripper -- most women are not strippers. LR has gotten so much grief here because she's like a poster child for single motherhood, strippers, masculine women, feminists who don't think they're feminists and so on. If LR didn't exist, someone would have had to have made her up.

It's amazing seeing all the gu

2009-06-04T21:04:04.959+02:00

It's amazing seeing all the guys here off-put by the clear shaming that is going on. Shaming is alpha, not beta. Protecting women is chivalry and beta. I think we are seeing just how deeply chivalrous and beta many folks are.

The folks at feministing and J

2009-06-04T19:29:59.924+02:00

The folks at feministing and Jezebel are a lost cause -- their minds are closed. None of the readers here should care much about what they think, because to be honest, you'll never change their minds.

This isn't a men' studies clas

2009-06-02T18:11:58.132+02:00

This isn't a men' studies class, but a "feminism as applied to men" class. The key indicia of that are when you start to see words like "masculinities" being used, and phrases like "the gendered construction of masculinity, and masculinity’s complex relation to power". That's feminist language and discourse. Courses like these are aimed at men to get men to see masculinity as being oppressive and patriarchal, as being "constructed" and therefore in need of deconstruction and reconstruction to be expressed in a way approved of by feminism. That's all this is about -- it is NOT men's studies. The idea here is simple. Women have changed the definition of femininity a lot, whereas men are seen as being "racalcitrant" about changing the definition of masculinity. Women see this as holding them back, because they see it as a way that men "cling to power" in a patriarchal power structure -- a structure which they assume is responsible for glass ceilings and pay gaps and so on. So they want to change men by deconstructing masculinity and reconstructing it to suit what they want men to be like. Note that this effort is NOT being demanded by men, by and large. True men's studies would approach the topics raised by feminism from a non-feminist perspective and address the real issues facing men, rather than phantoms like deconstructing masculinity.

You and I are enemies, stup

2009-06-02T16:16:42.020+02:00
You and I are enemies, stupid. Not because you are a woman, because you are a woman who perpetuates an unjust society that enslaves me, and benefits you. You and your ilk have declared war on me, and I am going to win that war. You will be forced to change against your will. Any words you have for me other than “You win” or “I surrender” are not worth typing. AJ - Eh, I don't think Bhetti, based on what I have read of her for a while, is the type of woman who is the enemy. If anything, she's the opposite of that.

"idea that the married couple

2009-06-02T15:02:18.493+02:00
"idea that the married couple should mimic the behavior of a courting couple many years (and children) into the relationship. That’s a dumb idea, doomed to failure and the result of much human unhappiness." @Cliff -- The issue here is how to maintain monogamy without some of the courtship behaviors you mention.

I honestly do not forsee a rev

2009-06-02T03:30:29.735+02:00
I honestly do not forsee a revolution. Men are terrible at collaborating when it comes to women. Rather more likely is a decline, and a rather long-winded one. As you pointed out in your other post, this isn't the first time we've had "feminism" in history. Women were empowered, relative to their age, in other societies like Rome, Babylon, Sparta. But the empowerment of women always preceded a fall. The difference this time is that reproductive technologies slingshot this iteration of feminism into hyperdrive, which is what we see today. I think it is more realistic to work for changes around the edges -- change custody law, establish routine paternity tests at birth, ensure that quotas are not instituted in the workplace and so on. Some of these goals may be achievable with effort, and we may get some women to work with us on some of them, too, if we frame the issues in a productive and saleable way. But I don't expect that we will be able to get enough men to care about these issues deeply enough for anything like a true rebellion to take shape.

"I used to buy the feminist /

2009-06-02T01:36:52.174+02:00
"I used to buy the feminist / chivalrous crap that it’s the male who should be blamed. It’s not that I approve of them. It’s that effective shaming and negative consequences has always been primarily on the woman — when it is effective. That’s because as Roissy, all of Evo Psych, and other PUAs constantly point out, to very wide agreement, women are the gatekeepers of human intercourse. Absent rape or strong coercion that’s true. It’s certainly true in America today." @Doug -- Very true. The feminists who were irked the most by the sexual double standard, which was an effective way of reigning in sexual immorality, were the ones who wanted the sexual freedom they perceived men to have: that is, to have what Erica Jong referred to as the "zipless fuck" without being slut-shamed. In other words, the women who were inclined to be slutty wanted this to go away so that they could be as slutty as they liked. For the rest of the female sex who does not want to be slutty, the disappearance of the double standard worked against them. Why? Because the sluts were now out in the open and putting out sex to beat the band. This lowered the price of sex for the most sexually desirable men, and left women who didn't want to put out sexually in a much less competitive position to win the attention of these men. The price of sex *increased* for men of higher beta and below status. It *decreased* a lot for alphas, even lesser ones. It freed up women who wanted to be slutty to deploy sex as a means of getting access to alphas, but at the same time foreclosed access to the same alphas to women who are not willing to put sex on the table.

@Doug -- I reviewed some numb

2009-06-02T01:29:28.584+02:00
@Doug -- I reviewed some numbers about marriage rates based on recent census data here: http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/2009/05/marriage-and-divorce-by-numbers.html Of course that doesn't tell us anything about how many sex partners men and women are having before they marry, but it does appear that marriage is very much still a big player, as is divorce, for most men and women alike.

Nice to see the Chicago skylin

2009-06-01T01:59:29.040+02:00
Nice to see the Chicago skyline, Bernard. I remember it pretty well from when I was last there around 2002.

"But the realist in me realize

2009-06-01T00:46:41.837+02:00
"But the realist in me realizes that the way that we'll most likely turn this battleship around is through forming parallel, competing institutions to the feminist ones--academic programs, government agencies, political lobbies--and compete politically as a class against them." EW -- I agree. I think we have a better chance if we work within the system than if we work to change the entire system. If our goal is to squelch feminist groups, we'll be tilting at windmills 500 years from now. That's just not feasible as an approach. We need to advocate our own interests within the system -- even this will be hard enough, but it will be far easier than trying to change the entire system. We need to be pragmatic. There's too much at stake here to stand on ideological principles. We need to find some low hanging fruit and go for it ... like the guys at UofC are doing. On the sciences, if we do quota-ize them, that spells the end of our competitive advantage as a country. There are many fine women scientists, but there are more fine men scientists. If we systematically exclude men where they excel, everyone in the US will pay the price for that. Hint: The Chinese are not going to quota-ize their science disciplines.

It was a good article. She's

2009-05-30T21:53:42.941+02:00
It was a good article. She's probably about as helpful as we can get from someone who is still a feminist (although many feminists don't consider her to be one because of the way she very rightly went after Carol Gilligan's book several years ago). I would say, though, in response to what she wrote, that men are as much to blame for this as feminism is. Men need to stand up and form these groups, demand men's studies, fund lobbying groups and so on. It's largely been our failure to do this that has led to this situation. I know feminism said it was a movement focused on equality for everyone, but we know that isn't the case from what they do -- they advocate women's interests. We can't expect the feminist groups to advocate men's interests as well in any way other than to change men's lives according to what feminists want for men's lives, regardless of what we want for our own. It's on us to not let that happen.

Thanks for the HT, EW. Megan

2009-05-29T18:32:00.457+02:00
Thanks for the HT, EW. Megan McCain is hardly a Republican. Oh I mean I know she thinks she is, but her politics are mostly libertarian. Having said that, I agree that the same sex marriage issue is a distraction. The real issue is marriage itself, which is currently a very weak institution. Re: out of wedlock births. The key difference between the US and Europe here is that most of the unmarried births in Europe are to couples who are married in everything but name. It's not really the same as what we call cohabiting in the US. In Europe, a lot of people don't get married, but they live in long-term relationships. In the US, cohabiting relationships tend to be viewed as "marriage with training wheels" or otherwise as a precursor to marriage -- there are, compared to Europe, relatively few couples who are in very long term relationships who are not married. So the tendency to have babies in cohabiting relationships in the US is a very different phenomenon than in Europe precisely because most of the cohabiting relationships in the US break up. As a result, there are far, far more single mothers here than there are in Europe. As a side note, this is also why gay people are so insistent about marital rights here -- much moreso than they are in most of Europe. The reason is that in the US, the "default/accepted" long term relationship model is still marriage, whereas in Europe it is not. The gay folks in much of Europe don't care as much about marriage because so many straight people are not getting married, meaning that marriage no longer has the same imprimatur. So, as a result of all that, yes we're worse off than other countries by far because there are far more single mothers. Re: starter marriages. Really a horrible term that has come into our vernacular, isn't it? It speaks volumes about our culture, in itself. Re: men's health. This is very much needed. I could nitpick about some of the findings justifying this proposed office because of the impact on women, but the substance of the proposal is too important to nitpick. Re: Octodad. Really a disgrace. There's no excuse for that kind of irresponsibility.