Is Masculinity a Matter of Money?

by Jack Donovan on November 4, 2011

In a column for National Review, conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently identified four legacies of feminism. His legacies are:

  1. The belief that women should have sex like men do, even though it seems to lead to depression and sexual disinterest over the long term.
  2. The belief that women should postpone marriage until they have developed careers.
  3. The belief that women should work outside the home.
  4. The demasculinization of men.

Praeger offered a few reasons for why these legacies were negative, but his assertions were vague and could be expanded substantially.

The postponement of marriage and family is obviously at odds with biological reality. By the time women are financially successful, they have only a short, desperate window to sort through potential mates, build a relationship and have a healthy baby—let alone the two or three children necessary to maintain replacement level population growth.

Feminism valorized careers, but the reality in this global economy is that most jobs suck. For every woman enjoying sex in the city as she pursues an exciting and fulfilling career, there are a bunch of women working the checkout line at Wal Mart or pouring over financial records in some accounting office. Feminism was pushed by a lot of women with designer educations and high career expectations. Betty Sue who stocks shelves at Target would probably rather spend more time at home with her kids, and her kids would probably be better off if she did.

Like Bill Bennett and Kay Hymowitz, Prager was also concerned that men were “demasculinized” because they were no longer interested in working to become husbands. He wrote:

“For all of higher civilization’s recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmingly as taking responsibility for a family. That notion — indeed the notion of masculinity itself — is regarded by feminism as the worst of sins: patriarchy.”

His qualifier “higher” there is interesting, and I wonder what exactly he meant and where the delineation is between higher and lower civilizations. His assertion that masculinity is defined most conspicuously by becoming the head of a household is both Judeo-Christian and bourgeois.

Manliness — as a way of being and behaving — has very little to do with whether or not one has married and produced children.

Praeger associates “demasculinization” with the loss of the male sex role in the context of family, and believes that men “want to be honored in some way.” This is a misuse of the word honor. A better word would have been “valued.” Saying that men want to be honored implies that they want some kind of special treatment, that they are by testicular possession entitled to some sort of special treatment or high esteem.

It would be more accurate and less ridiculous to say that men want to be valued. So do women. Women want to be treated as if they are special and irreplaceable in some way. Basically all recognizable romantic gestures involve a man showing a woman that she is special and irreplaceable to him. Romance is telling a woman “of all the vaginas in the world, yours is most magic.”

(Though, as a direct statement, I doubt that would go over.)

From an evolutionary standpoint, romance is making a woman feel secure in your commitment to help her through the vulnerable periods of pregnancy and child-rearing. Women needed men, and men wanted women.

Now, women don’t need men — at least on paper — because women can work to generate income, because they are protected from other men by police, and because when they fail to generate enough income, the State will invest in their reproductive endeavor. Anthropologist Lionel Tiger refers to State investment in reproduction as “bureaugamy.”

Men know that they are replaceable. An “equal partner” is little more than a co-applicant, a business partner — a domestic partner.  And when women decide to change partners, men can expect to go through the kind of experience W.F. Price recently wrote about, especially if they don’t have a lot of money.

I was talking to a guy the other day who was dating an older, financially successful woman. This young man has been to Africa several times working for humanitarian organizations, he spent seven seasons working on fishing boats, he’s been a newspaper photographer, and is searching for an experience to write his first book about. After several dates, the woman told him he was “unambitious.” He was completely flabbergasted as to how anyone could say he was unambitious.

I said, “Dude, she means money.”

A woman in her late thirties is eyeing up a house in the suburbs and she wants an additional income. She’s not a lesbian, so she can’t very well shack up with a woman. She has to find a man to buy the house and have the kids with her. Sure, it would be nice if the guy was handsome and interesting and good in bed, but  if he’s going to be a successful co-applicant, he’d better bring some chips to the table.

It’s a persistent theme in this fretting about the decline of the male role. Hymowitz and Bennett and Prager are all worried that fewer and fewer men will have enough money to become suitable husbands for the women of tomorrow. They’re concerned that men are too busy hanging out with other men and doing what makes them happy, and too lackadaisical about building careers that will generate sufficient income.

For so many “end of men” writers, masculinity seems to be all about money. For them, “manning up” is about giving up what is best in life to chase dollars and invest in some woman’s dream. They are concerned that men are “emasculated.” The failure of manhood that concerns them, though, is not a loss of virility. It is not a loss of strength or courage.  Their “emasculated” men merely suffer from low net worth.

Is masculinity just a matter of money?

 

________________

** If you enjoyed this article, please click “like” on my Facebook page to keep up with my work on this and other sites.

{ 145 comments… read them below or add one }

Firepower November 4, 2011 at 09:43

Um, everything
is about money.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 52 Thumb down 57
Rebel November 4, 2011 at 09:53

I beg to differ… Money isn’t everything: it’s the ONLY thing.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 44 Thumb down 43
Traveller November 4, 2011 at 10:16

“For all of higher civilization’s recorded history, becoming a man was defined overwhelmingly as taking responsibility for a family.”

Not true. In old times every man had a wife, this was so automatic it does not even worth the mention. The ancient Greek myths refer of courageus warriors, not husbands. Even Odysseus wants return to his land and second, his family.

After that, a man was defined by the income generated, as a farmer or artisan. it was obvious everyone could have had a family, except religious orders and very ill or deformed people.

Let’s not start about the Oriental Bushido.

Family is really overrated.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 10
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 10:22

But even if a man had the money for that house, why would he get married? What are the benefits of such an arrangement?

First off contemporary women are not doing what they should do when it comes to their roles. They do not cook, or do not cook well, would not clean the house, would not make sure I have clean cloths in the morning. Are constantly unhappy, and can take me to court and take my house.

Ambitious, or unambitious, marriage does not appear to be a viable option. What these conservative pundits do not realise is that marriage is empty…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 91 Thumb down 4
Traveller November 4, 2011 at 10:28

OT oh I forgot, from Google News front page, that judge’s daughter who posted a video of his father beating her. Now, police says he will not prosecuted because too much time is passed.

So, if it was a rape accusation, go figure if “it passed too much time”.

Notice, the accuser is female. And she lost, so it seems male judges are anyway more important than females.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 12
Rebel November 4, 2011 at 10:28

It wouldn’t be all that bad if marriage was simply empty.

Marriage is indentured servitude. It’s a sophisticated suicide, with guests, ceremony and all the rest.

Everybody is up in arms simply because…. men are waking up to that fact. This is proof positive that we are on the right track.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 4
Traveller November 4, 2011 at 10:29

HER father – sorry!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Pirran November 4, 2011 at 10:30

“Is masculinity just a matter of money?”

It is to them; it isn’t to us. Sooner or later the penny will drop and maybe even the bovine Bill Bennets will wake up and smell the Latte……or maybe not.

Either that or they’ll spew out another dozen hand-wringing tomes that all guys under 30 will ignore and the increasingly large numbers of MRA’s over that age will greet with a wry smile of contempt. Eventually, the Bennets and Hymowitz’s of the world will just die off if they can’t (or wont) acknowledge the obvious.

King Arthur’s dead, dudes; get over it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 2
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 10:36

I remember reading this biography of a certain nineteenth century Serbian writer. This man was having good days and was really struggling to make a living at other times. Nowhere does it say that he problems with his wife. Perhaps he had, but their marriage remained intact.

Contemporary woman would just call him a loser, and hire a divorce lawyer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 3
Ken November 4, 2011 at 10:37

and lets not forget the recent UN report about the human population recently reaching SEVEN BILLION!
Yeah, I want to raise kids in an over-populated gynosphere of lunatics when all signs point to ecological disaster and social breakdown in the next decade or two. Like Al Bundy used to say “NO MA’AM”! :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 14
keyster November 4, 2011 at 10:44

“Is masculinity just a matter of money?”

No.
Money is typically the by-product of ambition or ambitious endeavors. Another factor is power and status also typically, but not always associated with money. How does she explain to her friends and family “Oh, he wants to be a writer.”?

The great fear of the “Man-Shame Gang” is that we’re slowly losing the most valuable asset this country has, and that’s “Male Human Capital”. Where they fail to make the connection (although Praeger comes closest) is that the problem is not men’s desire to marry and raise a family, as much as there are no women willing to marry him unless he’s a hot superstar with a sexy well-paying job…because women already have his standard, boring job!

“Yuk! When it comes to employment, he’s no better than a woman!”

Too many 5′s, 6′s and 7′s are chasing too few 8′s, 9′s and 10′s.
Independent and empowered young women won’t SETTLE for equality in a man, they want better. The concept of hypergamy escapes the best social scientists of our time; amazing I know, but that’s the power of feminist indocrination.

How else is a guy supposed to react to all this disparagement and grrl power, or domination in adademe and the work place? He stops contributing. And when the male of the species stops contributing the society begins to decline and eventually fail. Thanks feminism!

Men are children, husbands are idiotic and fathers are a monthly check in the mail. How much more negative can the message get?

“Oh he works at McDonalds, but he wants to make Assistant Manager.”
“Well, at least he has ambition.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 85 Thumb down 7
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 10:44

@ Rebel

That sound akin to Feminists calling marriage ‘kitchen slavery.’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Alcuin November 4, 2011 at 10:51

When considering marriage and other such matters, think of the words of Gregory Skovoroda: “The world hunted me, but didn’t catch me.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
dragnet November 4, 2011 at 10:51

“Is masculinity just a matter of money?”

Well, yes.

Women didn’t become hypergamous yesterday—they were always like that. They were always about the resources–the money. This is in no way a strike against them, but an acknowledgement of their evolutionary reality. Patriarchal systems knew this instintively and so limited their sexual freedoms while placing rigorous demands on men to become net producers. Men were reponsible to women, women were accountable to men.

Modern misandry has attempted to keep one half of this ancient paradigm in place—men as net producers and responsible to women, while obliterating the other half of the equation—limited female sexual options and female accountability to men. For the misandrists, masculinity has always been about money and resource transfer because the whole point was to completely liberate the female id.

The whole project has been a smashing success—so boffo, in fact, that the worry now is that young men are so bereft of resources, there won’t be many to bleed dry and fuel the next 50 years of feminist revolution.

That’s a showstopper, and they’re scared shitless.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 130 Thumb down 6
CorkyAgain November 4, 2011 at 10:51

Funny, but when I think about the most admired men I know from history, none of them are admired for being married or for having money.

They’re admired for winning battles, inventing stuff, creating beautiful paintings or sculptures, writing great poems or novels, exploring new territories, going to the moon, scoring the winning touchdown, expounding a philosophy, founding a religion. Etc.

Many of them were only able to do those things because they eschewed marriage and the bourgeois lifestyle. They were loners, outsiders, men going their own way…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 100 Thumb down 2
keyster November 4, 2011 at 10:53

“…that judge’s daughter who posted a video of his father beating her. Now, police says he will not prosecuted because too much time is passed.”

It should be pointed out that she set the hidden camera up and disobeyed her father on purpose; holding on to the tape for over 7 years to be used against him when the time came. They had a recent disagreement over something trivial and she threatened him with releasing the tape publicly and he said he didn’t care.

Even at the age of 16 she had this whole thing planned out.
The word “evil” doesn’t begin to describe her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 91 Thumb down 9
BeijaFlor November 4, 2011 at 11:01

What’s wrong with us, Bill? Kay? Try this one: Men have finally realized it’s our turn to ask the time-honored question -

What’s in it for me?

And we do NOT like the answer.

This is my place. This is my car. You can walk home from here. Good night.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 102 Thumb down 1
Seamus the Classicisit November 4, 2011 at 11:04

Money is not a real thing, it is a medium of exchange. It is the feminine mindset (that rules this world) that could see a medium of exchange as equating to masculinity. Why? Because the female mindset is that of a whore: she exchanges services as sex, a womb, homemaker, child rearer, etc. for shelter and security. By nature then a woman is to be used (i.e. passive and receptive as opposed to the masculine active and pro-genitive.)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 2
CorkyAgain November 4, 2011 at 11:04

I see “the judge and his daughter” is bleeding over into this thread now.

I don’t think recognizing the daughter’s scheming means we have to embrace the family court judge as one of our own. I’m more inclined to say I’ve got no dog in that particular fight, but it’s fun to watch anyway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 4
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 11:06

@ dragnet

I guess that at one point the culture would either reinstate patriarchy, or will be replaced by a patriarchal system from without. This cannot go on indefinitely.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Alcuin November 4, 2011 at 11:11

At some point, given the massive unhappiness of women, they will end the matriarchy and probably seek a more traditional society. Which won’t necessarily be good for men, because we’ll be back to being unwitting wage slaves.

That’s why some form of male disengagement is the best way forward.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 4
Amanda November 4, 2011 at 11:18

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 127
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 11:25

@ Alcuin

As far as the current state of affairs goes, male disengagement is a perfect strategy. But that is here and now…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh November 4, 2011 at 11:26

Men were “demasculinzed” by being told that masculinity was bad and by being deprived of male role models. All these worthless columnists know that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Leos Tomicek November 4, 2011 at 11:27

What’s up Mandy, wanna lecture us on the wonderful achievements of Feminism?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
nugganu November 4, 2011 at 11:45

@keyster – brilliant post.

Here in Toronto, even the fat uggs have a fucking attitude.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4
Anonymous Reader November 4, 2011 at 11:52

+1 on Dragnet’s points.

Let me add this: all the msm cow-mooing from Bennett, Hymowitz, etc. every single time contains a healthy heapin’ helpin’ of apex fallacy. None of them can see that Affirmative Action has not only pushed men back while shoving women forward, it also has created entire organizations dominated by women – and to whom the only attractive man is one or more levels up the hierarchy. So they stamp their feet on the glass floor and whine “there’s no good men!” even as the men who have been deliberately stepped on look up from below.

Ladies, the view from down here, it’s not all that great.

I dunno what it’s gonna take for the concept of hypergamy to break out to the mainstream. But until then, all these aging, menopausal feminists who suddenly want a grand child, all these aging white knight tradcon/socon’s are going to be talking around an elephant in the room.

Oh, and Prager is missing one point: it is an axiom of feminism that
men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies all the other errors flow from that unreal premise.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 4
AntZ November 4, 2011 at 11:54

@Amanda

Why do you want to be on the wrong side of history?

The MRM is writing the next chapter in civil rights. You obstinately cling to notions of male inferiority, dehumanization of boys, and dispossession of fathers. Why?

You are no different from the reactionaries who fought against religious tolerance in the 18the century or racial tolerance in the 19th century. Your bigoted religion will be remembered as the darkest chapter in the modern era.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 6
dragnet November 4, 2011 at 11:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 44
keyster November 4, 2011 at 11:57

“…except she’d have been unable to complain iv (sic) male bosses groped or harassed her,…”

Neither could a man complain about being groped or harassed.

Even today if a man complains about sexual harassement he’s laughed at and ridiculed. But when a woman does HR goes into battle mode, scrambles employment lawyers and initiates investigations…because women win in court, and men don’t. Men are simply laid off in a “reduction of force”, while women are awarded “judgements”.

Oh that’s right I almost forgot, feminism is all about “equality”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 4
nugganu November 4, 2011 at 11:58

“Independent and empowered young women won’t SETTLE for equality in a man, they want better.”

And given the children of the late 60′s and early 70′s are approaching or at 40, we are going to see a pandemic, and astonishing one at that, of childless spinsters.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 1
Opus November 4, 2011 at 12:07

In this excellent article the writer fails, so far as I can see, to elucidate point 3, so I will have a go with some tentative elucidations:

3. Working outside the home:

Whats is wrong with that, you might think, especially when the children are old enough to be at school, and with all these labour-saving devices, keeping house takes little time, so little that it can feel as if she is an inmate at a concentration camp (women are never happy).

I detect certain problems:

1. The encouragement – by placing them amongst men – to promiscuity, and as women tend to be serially monogamous then (unlike for a man) a fling tends to lead to divorce.

2. The delusional belief that men who either have not noticed them or who are merely treating them like fellow men, are chasing them ‘inappropriately’.

3 (as mentioned by Mr Donovan) the failure by reason of their equal or better salary to look up to their man – leading to unhappiness.

Yet, even today a Tweet from our (female) Home Secretary is promoting the idea that women’s special skills can add billions to the economy. I tweeted back as follows ‘Whatever can the Home Secretary be referring to? Surely, not Prostitution?’ – it is their only discrete or special money-making skill I can think of. I await a visit from MI5.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
keyster November 4, 2011 at 12:14

“She was a teenaged girl with cerebral palsy who had done something wrong and deserved be disciplined—not beaten to hell.”

You’re buying into the media hyperbole meant to evoke just such emotions. Even conveying it in your own perception, as in “beaten to hell”. He smacked her with a belt as her mother egged him on. That was her punishment, after she was told not to do something and did it.

I’m not going to judge a man on how he chooses to discipline his children. Short of breaking the law, it’s not my concern. But in this case she seems to have turned out OK as she was emotionally strong enough to try and ruin her father’s career for a slight.

She’s also not a run-away crack whore working the streets. On the contrary she seems to be a strong and rather resolute young woman.

Don’t get sucked into the media “colorization” of such events.
They do this for ratings.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 9
Born Free November 4, 2011 at 12:34

@ Dragnet

I would like to see a survey done to show how many young men in their twenties are rejecting the traditional social expectations of getting trapped with a career+marriage+children+mortgage just like the herbivore guys in Japan. In Japan a survey revealed that they made up 60 percent of the young male population and that has government officials scared shitless that it will impact the economy adversely.

They want men to man up, then erradicate Affirmative Action and entitlement programs for women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 2
Bryan November 4, 2011 at 12:35

Historically for every poor man there was a poor woman who was more or less content to be with a poor man as long as he would help keep her safe and would keep her fed.

Today even poor and middle class women expect that they are going to be swept off their feet by a handsome charming prince who is often literally a prince. My mother used to express the belief that someday she would be a British royal or at least a noble by marrying some prince, an earl, or even just a baron. I pretty much shattered that delusional fantasy of hers by asking her, point-blank, “why would one of those sort of guys ever marry you? what do you have to offer them?” Thus set in the cold sting of reality.

Really though, why would an overweight American woman with a history of infidelity expect to be able to marry into royalty? Modern women have an entitlement complex that is so massive that it defies belief.

The man has to be all the things that the woman is not. It is not uncommon for a fat broke woman incapable of being loyal to insist that a prospective suitor be in excellent shape, incredibly handsome, loaded with cash, totally loyal, and willing to commit to her for life.

It’s the equivalent of an F student demanding an A grade, “because I deserve it!!!!!”

When did Fs decide that they rated an A?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 4
josh November 4, 2011 at 12:40

When did Fs decide that they rated an A?

The day after the first humans came down from the trees.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 12
Rebel November 4, 2011 at 12:43

Every time the Bennets and Hymowitz’s of the world spill their bile, there is an upsurge of anger among men.

I have come to consider it likely that those “prophets” are really stirring up shit, pushing men deep into their retreat to make them angrier.

Those two are certainly not looking for solutions, for such are never mentioned. Their goals are really to spread animosity and hatred.

Hymowitz and Bennet know which buttons to push that make men angry. I just wonder what kind of profit they draw.

BTW, my statement that money is the only thing was a joke..

lol!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5
joe November 4, 2011 at 12:45

When they critique a decline in “masculinity”, what they are in fact critique-ing is the decline in men’s willingness to work their nuts off for someone else’s dreams and desires.

I lived with my first gf for three years out of a 4 year relationship. I broke up with her and moved out, at the time I was confused as to why I didn’t love her anymore, and why I felt trapped (even though I’d moved it to be an open relationship early on). In hindsight I realised that it was because my gf was passive-agressively pushing me into living the middle-class life of clone drone ordinariness she wanted. The life her parents lived. That she’d been raised to expect.

I got what I wanted – a rollercoaster of various adventures and travels, that I could never have had without dodging the 9-5 suburban zombie bullet. Eventually she got what she wanted – she’s married with two kids now, to a doctor whose income means she can be a stay at home mom, since her recruitment consultant job was made redundant.

I’ve had a few ltr’s since. My refusal to live together (subsequent to that first experience) means when the gf reaches the stage where she’s looking for someone to go halves (or more) on a mortgage, car, kids… then she jumps ship for more provider-type fellas. Fair enough.

I am NOKNOMNOWNOW – No kids, No mortgage, No wife, No worries! I’m a free-range man. I’ve made my choice, I pay the price, I reap the reward.

And as to masculinity in general? That’s for men to define. Not women.

As to my masculinity? It’s for me to define. I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about that.

Reaching the point where you don’t give two short shits about anyone’s, especially a woman or women’s (dis)approval of you, or your life(style) is IMO one of the crucial features of being a grown-ass man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 3
Joe Zamboni November 4, 2011 at 12:51

To get back to the official thread “Is masculinity just a matter of money?”:

One thing that is not mentioned in these comments is the profound impact of the legal system. Certainly there is a lot more to masculinity than money, but the legal system in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada and similar western countries has made masculinity all about money. I am talking about child support, division of assets upon divorce, alimony, etc. So far as family law (which has been heavily influenced by feminist values) is concerned, there is nothing more that a man has to offer. That’s why the legal system is absolutely indifferent to fathers’ objections that ex-wives alienate the children from them, block the kids from seeing them, etc. So the answer to the question posed by Jack Donovan is, if all you are looking at is what’s official, what’s enshrined in the law, then “yes,” masculinity is all about money. If you have a broader perspective, which most people do, then the answer must be “no.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti November 4, 2011 at 13:01

“The belief that women should work outside the home.”

I don’t think this is all that extraordinary. It was the norm for millennia, until our society all of the sudden decided that the poor dears could not and should not work to support the family.

As a result, we got Betty Friedan.

My opinion, one I think is backed up by Proverbs 31: they need to contribute to the household economy at least as much as a man does.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
dragnet November 4, 2011 at 13:22

@ Born Free

“I would like to see a survey done to show how many young men in their twenties are rejecting the traditional social expectations of getting trapped with a career+marriage+children+mortgage just like the herbivore guys in Japan.”

I wish I could say I believed men were consciously putting off marriage because of societal misandry…but I think it’s much more likely because of declining economic opportunity. If these same guys thought they could make it to the top of the cubicle game, they’d probably be wifing up mannish, bitchy American women in droves.

There’s a difference between refusing to meet societal expectations because you’ve taken the red pill, and refusing to do so because you couldn’t. The former is angry at a rigged game and wants to put a fairer paradigm in place. The latter is angry at the rigged game because he lost.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
GS Jockey November 4, 2011 at 13:39

@ dragnet

“As far as I’m concerned, that girl is on the side of the angels—and I’m actually glad she told the world what was done to her. She has no reason to be ashamed of what was done to her—kids make willful mistakes sometimes.”

Dude, I hear what you are saying. However, this “angel girl” isn’t all that she seems. Have you read the official statement released by her father’s lawyer? Sounds to me like this girl was a schemer who plotted this situation then launched a hissy fit when Sugar Daddy’s money dried up…

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/11/03/judge.adams.statement.pdf?hpt=hp_c1

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
andrew s. November 4, 2011 at 14:00

As a young guy, as well as most guys my age, I didn’t understand anything about hypergamy. “Why do these 4′s, 5′s, and 6′s treat me as if I was the Elephant man?” I would ask myself this all the time, not understanding the nature of the female sex.

Guys who are average to decent looking, being treated like shit for not being 8′s and 9′s by average to slightly above average looking women is another legacy of feminism.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price November 4, 2011 at 14:09

I don’t think this is all that extraordinary. It was the norm for millennia, until our society all of the sudden decided that the poor dears could not and should not work to support the family.

As a result, we got Betty Friedan.

My opinion, one I think is backed up by Proverbs 31: they need to contribute to the household economy at least as much as a man does.

-EW

I saw how women in pre-industrial economies contribute to the household income with my own eyes when I lived in China. The peasant women would show up at the market with their wares and abacuses to sell all sorts of produce, meat, eggs, what have you. They often ran their stalls alone, in the big city, and made their way home when the market closed. Women have been leaving home to work for a long, long time. When we hear of ancient societies where wives did not leave the home, these are invariably slave societies where other women did it for them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Jim November 4, 2011 at 14:12

dragnet:

I’ll be honest, I was cornered by my last two gf’s for marriage. I broke it off. It was a combination of things, but it had nothing to do with “starving the beast.”

My reality is that the women I was interested in ignored me and the ones I ignored wanted marriage.

I was confused for a long time as to what I wanted out of life, but after finding Tom Leykis, then Roissy, and now Spearhead, I think my mind is made up.

Furthermore, I would like to know what the age spread is around here.

I’m in the 30-35 bracket.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
dragnet November 4, 2011 at 14:34

@ W.F. Price, Elusive Wapiti

I addressed the point about working women in the patriarchy here:

http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/culturefashion/kinky-stuff/feminism-the-winter-of-men%e2%80%99s-discontent/comment-page-1/#comment-53251

The core difference between working women now and back then, was that back then they were economically empowered in the service of their families and now they are economically empowered to no real end at all—just endless personal consumption.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
Vortac November 4, 2011 at 14:47

Great article.

The ones who praise the artificial debt-system that is called ‘money’ should realize that it is merely a human-manufactured illusion to control slaves. It is nothing by itself. If you take ‘money’ to another planet, it’s worthless. If you take truckloads of money with you on a deserted island, you will realize that you can’t eat it or drink it, and it will not help you in any way to survive.

If you take something that was once considered money, but isn’t anymore – suddenly, “the only thing” becomes completely useless and worthless (so it has no absolute value). Nature, trees, plants, energy, soil, seeds, water, air, etc. – those are REAL resources. Money isn’t.

Money is merely pieces of metal and paper – and some register value changes (it boils down to electromagnetic current changes – that’s why money is called ‘current’, I suppose – and electric charge – another term that is used in business a lot) in some bank’s computer’s memories and harddrives. It is nothing substancial, it’s nothing real, it’s only value comes from something as esoteric as people -believing- it has value.

To me, money has always seemed like an unnecessary, creativity-destroying, unnatural hassle that should have been done away with a long time ago to actually advance the humanity. Instead, it has become a false god that will destroy the humanity.

Things could work the way they do, without people constantly and endlessly exchanging pieces of paper, metal and numbers in computer’s memories (and harddrives, microchips/cards) with each other every step of the way. Money (or what is called ‘money’) really has a profound polluting effect on the human soul and the spirit of man. Everything is artificially tied to it, and thus it has become easy to use it to create fear. Lack of money is one of the biggest fears people have these days.

People do not trust anymore that a Higher Force will take care of them, regardless of human-manufactured possessions. As a result, people are unable to express true humanity anymore. Money in some form could have been useful during certain transformations and phases of human evolution, but it should have been just a side margin for worthwhile activity, not the whole point of existence, which for many people, it seemingly has become.

I pity those who collect ‘treasures’ here on Earth – they can’t take any of them with them, when they depart this planet.

The wise ones collect treasures in their soul.

- Vortac

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 24
Vortac November 4, 2011 at 14:50

““Why do these 4?s, 5?s, and 6?s treat me as if I was the Elephant man?””

Actually, the Elephant man would have a high status and bang a lot of hotties in reality – because he’s ‘different’ (better than other men, stands out, high in hierarchy – unique, etc.), and of course famous. Looks do not matter to women the way they matter to men.

- Vortac

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 22
Rocco November 4, 2011 at 15:22

@ dragnet

And what they consume are cosmetics, clothes, apartements and restaurant food.

The young ones try to get an old guy to pay the rent.

Then when they get over 35 they get tired of working…..this is why they want children…it has nothing to do with child hunger.

Look at the tons of questionaires sent out, women do not want children today….not until they realize work is no game and is not fullfilling and, with the way the economy is going will likely never end.

So I think all women should work unless they have a disability, and pregnancy is a 2 week recovery time.

In Germany if you can’t find other employment your sent to the brothel to see if you make the grade…..I think our women can do it….they have alot of job experience for this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5
keyster November 4, 2011 at 15:33

“I saw how women in pre-industrial economies contribute to the household income with my own eyes when I lived in China.”

“Women have been leaving home to work for a long, long time.”

At least since Marxism came into wider spread practice, right?

Maintaining home and hearth was a job and was genuine work, which is why woman stayed home to do it, while man went off to the mill.

In China you may have seen the women out of the house, but what you didn’t see was the extended family, grandmothers and aunts, caring for the home and children. That women work (contribute to the labor collective) is Marxism. Once house work became easier and so did labor (the cushy office) women here actually insisted on working, because they wanted their own money to buy more stuff. And now that they’re starting to regret it, its too late.

Us Free Range Men sit back and mock them for their insolence, frustration and depression.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5
greyghost November 4, 2011 at 15:36

Thank god this article can finally be written in the United States.

Jack, the best answer your “unambitious” friend to the rich chick should be. “I’m unambitious huh,….well are we still fucking tonight? I’m not here to win over the old fashion way I’m here to wear that pussy out.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
Somehow Somewhat November 4, 2011 at 15:50

“The ones who praise the artificial debt-system that is called ‘money’ should realize that it is merely a human-manufactured illusion to control slaves. ”

Vortac, your ideas are summarised here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544 “Money as debt” documentary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price November 4, 2011 at 16:24

“I saw how women in pre-industrial economies contribute to the household income with my own eyes when I lived in China.”

“Women have been leaving home to work for a long, long time.”

At least since Marxism came into wider spread practice, right?

-Keyster

You’ll see the same thing in Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines — it isn’t Marxism, trust me.

Maintaining home and hearth was a job and was genuine work, which is why woman stayed home to do it, while man went off to the mill.

Traditionally, Chinese women spun cloth (silk) at home while men worked the fields. Taxes were based on rice and silk, the men’s and women’s contributions being of roughly equal value. Cooking and cleaning weren’t counted in the deal — women were expected to be productive from the beginning.

In China you may have seen the women out of the house, but what you didn’t see was the extended family, grandmothers and aunts, caring for the home and children. That women work (contribute to the labor collective) is Marxism. Once house work became easier and so did labor (the cushy office) women here actually insisted on working, because they wanted their own money to buy more stuff. And now that they’re starting to regret it, its too late.

Sure I saw the extended family at work — usually they help each other with the business, connections, etc. You’ve got to keep in mind that childcare in China is not approached with the same degree of concern that it is here. Peasants often “sandbox” their kids, and urban women hire peasant maids to care for the kids (they are really cheap). I think a lot of us don’t realize that the enormous attention and care given to children today was not the norm until fairly recently. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but for the overwhelming majority of women throughout history sitting around with the baby all day and tidying up here and there simply wasn’t an option — they had to work to put food on the table just like men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Jack Donovan November 4, 2011 at 17:02
rmaxd November 4, 2011 at 17:37

To those who dont understand W.F Prices point about working women

He’s not addressing corporate or modern woman, he’s talking about REAL environments for REAL women

The same environment women worked in BEFORE the advent of the housewife

The women we see in corporations & modern society arent, what i & most traditional cultures would call real jobs for women

I’m not talking about some stepford wife

Dragnet gets it:
“The core difference between working women now and back then, was that back then they were economically empowered in the service of their families and now they are economically empowered to no real end at all—just endless personal consumption.”

The conversation isnt relevant here, as this is a mens rights site, so ill just post a link to my comment, where i explain what a real environment for real women is in the comments section on Lauras site, for those interested

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1260872017691170854&postID=3456750464002659474

Quoting myself ….

“Women essentially dont work, not in the same way men do

Women interact in massive nuclear social networks, which serves as a safety net for their children & finances, & their need to constantly reinforce a social environment

It is this very real need for women to be part of what is a tribal nuclear family, with hundreds of relatives & close friends for her to interact, & work financially in close proximity of her children

This need to be part of a village, which is stripped away from women as stayathome moms & corporate wage slaves”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Alcuin November 4, 2011 at 18:15

Seamus the Classicist: “Because the female mindset is that of a whore: she exchanges services as sex, a womb, homemaker, child rearer, etc. for shelter and security.”

You betcha!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
Natassia November 4, 2011 at 18:33

I think modern society has pushed androgyny more than anything. Men are encouraged to be less masculine (skinny jeans, emo hair, sensitivity training in the military, etc.) while women are encouraged to be less feminine (ambitious, aggressive, promiscuous, etc.)

Thanks to society and a fairly feminist mother, I felt like I was not an equal contributor in my marriage as I was raising children and keeping house. My whole self-worth revolved around money…and the fact that I was not physically earning any made me feel worth less than my husband.

I cringed every time a woman asked, “So, what do YOU do?”

This has got to be incredibly unhealthy to a woman’s psyche, and her relationship with her husband. It breeds envy and resentment.

Feminism has not only destroyed patriarchy, but it has destroyed femininity as well.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 8
Avenger November 4, 2011 at 18:36

Funny, but when I think about the most admired men I know from history, none of them are admired for being married or for having money.
They’re admired for winning battles, inventing stuff, creating beautiful paintings or sculptures, writing great poems or novels, exploring new territories, going to the moon, scoring the winning touchdown, expounding a philosophy, founding a religion. Etc.

Corky-all of those things you mentioned translate into money and females are excellent, in general, at determining a man’s worth (to them) because their whole life depends upon it. At the very least they have to choose a man to reproduce(the most important thing in nature) with who will at least maintain them at their class level.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Avenger November 4, 2011 at 19:03

Vortac-stop deluding yourself into thinking that chicks would fuck the elephant man, and he didn’t have the sort of fame that translated into money. he was like a curiousity in a freakshow until he was rescued by a doctor and he live at London hospital for the rest of his life. I’ve actually seen his bones which were kept there (it’s not open to the public) and I believe that they were eventually just buried somewhere.
This guy was not going to get any chicks lol
When you talk about ugly guys getting chicks you don’t mean Merrick but someone like this:

http://filmsdefrance.com/FDF_jpbelmondo.html

And btw, he was close to 6′ and made money acting. No ugly 5’4″ guy working in a cubicle is going to get chicks easily (or at all)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3
Rocco November 4, 2011 at 19:48

To American women money is everything, perhaps it’s because she’s been trained and the female journey of male bashing, victimology followed by numerous sex partners each of which was a potential mate that didn’t work out, and 1/3 (I made that up) or something having abortion guilt and then the hatred of children/household/caring/closeness/concern/faithfulness/masculinitey/ or smell is the bread and butter of woman porn otherwise known as cable TV you have a group of women who don’t really think it’s worth alot of trouble to stay in a marriage with some stubborn dude. Even for the kids.

So yeah, after it’s all said and done, if it’s a better deal without him and, let’s face it, he spends more than he earns, I better get back on that diet.

It’s also about hurting men. Women seem to be willing to hurt men even if there is no clear financial reward. This is the reason some feel women have a real misandry problem.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Jack November 4, 2011 at 20:06

Men and women are both replaceable and yet not replaceable. The weight and price for society of men turning away from tradition is greater than women doing the same. They are just now learning about that reality.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Seamus the Classicisit November 4, 2011 at 20:25

@Alcuin,

I’ve been reading to much Alcuin and Stoic philosophy. Like you said, “Ethics are for men, and psychology for women.”

Woman by her nature being reflective and reflexive does not have the moral imperative necessary to be virtuous. Hence the etymology of the world ‘virtue’ being derived from ‘vir’ (‘man’.)

That is why in most societies the “oppression” of women seems to be such, the wicked (and some righteous) would prefer to not have any sort of constraints upon their behavior. The “oppression” of women was meant to keep them in line with the norms of the society they lived in, a woman faced severe penalties for adultery because any resultant bastard would be the financial burden of her lawful husband, in essence she wasn’t punished for adultery but fraud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
sestamibi November 4, 2011 at 20:25

Prager, not Praeger.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Jack Donovan November 4, 2011 at 20:33

Wow, what kind of funky dyslexia was I having?

I had to go out of my way to spell that weird.

Jack Donovan November 4, 2011 at 20:37

Fixed it. Thanks.

Joe Zamboni November 4, 2011 at 20:49

I’m tired of being perceived by women as a wallet and a sperm bank (masculinity is about more than just money, but in the eyes of many women, only marginally more than money because the sperm often leads to more money). I work hard not to publicly reveal that I have money. I drive an old car, I don’t wear any jewelry, I make a point to dress down, and I don’t go to fancy restaurants, nor do I go on expensive vacations. I deliberately do not bring women home to my house on the first five dates (that would be too much of a tip-off). I never talk about how much money I make, investments, retirement plans, etc. I’m not interested in attracting a gold digger. To the contrary, I act relaxed about money on first dates, and watch to see if the woman is going to offer to pay half. If she doesn’t offer to pay half, if she just allows me to pay for the first date, that’s it — it’s over. If she’s sincere about pulling her weight, then there might be a second date. I pay attention to little bits of evidence indicating whether she’s getting alimony from her ex, she’s on welfare, or she’s being funded by some sugar daddy. I’m only interested in dating women who are genuine contributors. I’ve had enough of leaches. Not only do they need to prove that they are a real contributor up-front in our relationship, but they had better keep proving it, or I’m gone.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 8
Jack November 4, 2011 at 21:27

“If she doesn’t offer to pay half, if she just allows me to pay for the first date, that’s it — it’s over. If she’s sincere about pulling her weight, then there might be a second date”.

Good for you. Just be damn careful she isn’t reading between the lines and still playing you. Don’t forget how much all women want to be a princess and can/will change once they taste the money of another.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
oddsock November 4, 2011 at 22:01

“No ugly 5’4? guy working in a cubicle is going to get chicks easily (or at all)”

Firepower. Is this what makes you so angry?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 11
Elusive Wapiti November 4, 2011 at 23:47

Dragnet,

“The core difference between working women now and back then, was that back then they were economically empowered in the service of their families and now they are economically empowered to no real end at all—just endless personal consumption.”

Good point about qui bono with respect to a woman’s labors. Unharnessed female labor is just as detrimental as unharnessed male labor, the difference being that unharnessed female labor tends to be directed toward what I see as frivolous consumption (e.g., “pin money” as my grandmother called it), while unharnessed male labor tends to be never realized in the first place in favor of leisure activity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Venom Froggy November 5, 2011 at 00:26

@Leos Tomicik:

“Ambitious, or unambitious, marriage does not appear to be a viable option. What these conservative pundits do not realise is that marriage is empty…”

Most Christians are just as guilty of this. Which is why the Church is doomed to fall into further and further irrelevance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
evilwhitemalempire November 5, 2011 at 00:46

Amanda November 4, 2011 at 11:18 Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Before feminism, betty sue who stocks the shelves would have still been working some kind of job, except she’d have been unable to complain iv male bosses groped or harassed her, and neither she not her husband would have been able to take time off when their kids were born.
**************

Back then if betty sue was cute enough for someone to want to grope her she wouldn’t have had to work in the first place because she’d be married to a wealthy, productive man (there used to be a lot more of them around you see) you stupid dyke.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 6
evilwhitemalempire November 5, 2011 at 01:26

keyster November 4, 2011 at 12:14
Don’t get sucked into the media “colorization” of such events.
They do this for ratings.

*************
Colorization?
Dude! I got sucked into the raw footage.
Have you watched it in it’s entirety?

Yes, the girl was/is a devious and willful little bitch.
And the mother. Protecting herself from getting hit by taking an active part? A credit to moms everywhere! (Btw next mothers day would be a great time to bring her up.)

But as an anti-feminist it never occurs to me to take the side of ANY family court judge let alone one with such obvious sadism and hypocrisy on display as that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
CorkyAgain November 5, 2011 at 01:39

“Corky-all of those things you mentioned translate into money”

Excuse me, but no they don’t. It’s true that some people put a monetary value on everything and reduce it to a market transaction. That’s how we get modern art hoaxes like Piet Mondrian and Jackson Pollack — nobody knows exactly why their stuff is “art” but they know what sells. But that just proves that they don’t know what art is, or that there’s more to it than money.

You can “translate” all those things into money, but you lose a lot in translation. In fact, I’d say you lose everything that made them worth doing in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
CorkyAgain November 5, 2011 at 02:00

Sorry Avenger, I hadn’t read your comment carefully enough before rushing to respond.

I agree that women will put a dollar value on all the things in my list. They’re exactly the kind of philistines I was decrying.

But I would also remind you that many men have pursued these goals not for money but for the satisfaction that comes from doing something well and, in many cases, in service to some cause higher than themselves. Many of them lived in poverty and obscurity, and only achieved a post-mortem fame. So the golddigger women wouldn’t have considered them a good catch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire November 5, 2011 at 02:01

According to Vortac money is useless and the Elephant Man was a player.

Do they call you Vortac because you arrived from another dimension through a space/time VORTEX?
Or is Vortac the name of some new pharma drug in trials and you’re a volunteer to test for cognitive side effects?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Michael November 5, 2011 at 03:46

“No ugly 5’4? guy working in a cubicle is going to get chicks easily (or at all)”

“Firepower. Is this what makes you so angry?”

Yeah, yesterday he is a girl, today he must be a the little ugly dweeb, because he mentioned the stereotype. Talk about shaming language, eh?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9
E November 5, 2011 at 04:24

Is masculinity just a matter of money?

short answer: no.
long answer:
In the movie the Lion King, the main character is introduced to the phrase, “Hakuna Matata, it means no worries for the rest of your days.” For awhile the main character is happy with the arrangement but deep down inside he feels empty. It is not until in the end where he pushes himself to his full capacity that he achieves true happiness.

I believe men are biologically wired to want to push themselves harder. This is a major part of masculinity. Women however can be absolutely happy living their entire lives accomplishing nothing while being treated as a princess. This is why in almost every human endeavor imaginable whether it’s mathematics or music composition men beat women. This is true not just at the elite levels but even at the lower levels. For example a very unimpressive Joe Blow who works as a long haul truck driver still makes more money than a very unimpressive Jane Sucks who works as a waitress at IHOP or Dennys.

This is what pisses women off so much. With the exception of being more beautiful to look at, Men are superior to women in every way and it’s because we have a greater *burning desire*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAR4OfwZbbE

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 04:28

Wow, what kind of funky dyslexia was I having?

I had to go out of my way to spell that weird.

Not really. I would have spelt it that way if someone told me that was his name and I didn’t see it in writing. It’s also the name of a publisher, Praeger, whose books are used at universities so it’s natural for people to use this spelling and I assumed that Dennis spelt it that way too before seeing his name in print.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Skeptic November 5, 2011 at 04:34

As my Grandfather used to say of snobbish economically ‘empowered’ modern women – “They know the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
Wise man my Grandfather.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
E November 5, 2011 at 04:39

oops instead of
“This is what pisses women off so much.”
it should be
“This is what pisses feminists off so much.”

I’m sure there must be some women out there (part of the minority no doubt but still in existence) who understands that they enjoy a first world standard of living of flushable toilets and shopping malls precisely because men are superior. If God made men equal to women we’d all be living a miserable third world existence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 04:41

This is what pisses women off so much. With the exception of being more beautiful to look at, Men are superior to women in every way and it’s because we have a greater *burning desire*.

Are they more beautiful then men in general or is it just that the male mind is programmed to respond to the female form sexually and they call this female beauty? I’m not a homosexual but personally I don’t find 90% of females attractive at all. Most of the majority of female’s “looks” are artificial anyway and it’s really only a small % of young females that have slim and well proportioed bodies and perfect natural skin and hair and even these girls will use some makeup.
Young guys only think females are beautiful because of their raging hormones and need for their sex fix. They’ll fuck almost anything lol Not too diferent from a heroin addict who will use toilet water if clean water isn’t available to inject a drug. Or some guy with a prostate the size of a melon who will piss in a filty toilet. Any port in a storm :o )

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
CorkyAgain November 5, 2011 at 04:54

Re the man’s “burning desire”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
CorkyAgain November 5, 2011 at 05:08

To my eye, “Praeger” is an example of the orthographic convention that spells the German a-umlaut as “ae” because the two-dots diacritic is not available in the typeface being used.

a-umlaut is pronounced as in “favor” while the un-umlauted “a” is pronounced as in “father”

Prager pronounces his name as pray-ger, so it appears to be derived from a German name containing the a-umlaut.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
thehermit November 5, 2011 at 05:11

“Is masculinity just a matter of money?”

No, it’s about dignity. It has nothing to do about money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 05:27

As my Grandfather used to say of snobbish economically ‘empowered’ modern women – “They know the price of everything and the value of nothing”.
Wise man my Grandfather.

Was your grandpappy Oscar Wilde? :)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 05:30

Michael November 5, 2011 at 03:46
“No ugly 5’4? guy working in a cubicle is going to get chicks easily (or at all)”

“Firepower. Is this what makes you so angry?”

Yeah, yesterday he is a girl, today he must be a the little ugly dweeb, because he mentioned the stereotype. Talk about shaming language, eh?

Michael, are you saying Firepower, bats for both sides ? Hey, I don’t have any problem with that, whatever floats his/her boat is fineby me.

It does leave me a little confused though. Do we call him/her a he or a she ? Maybe shim would be easier?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 05:34

Corkyagain

You know what mate I was just about to point out the exact same thing, honest . It’s them feckin Germans again, they bombed our chippy you know? That was way out of order !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Gx1080 November 5, 2011 at 05:34

“Is masculinity just a matter of money?”

*Looks the pile of CEO’s and famous people who couldn’t manage their relationships and it blowed on their faces. Case in point: Tiger Woods.*

*Looks at the other pile of drug dealers, gang members and wanna be rockstars that get laid like gangbusters while being poor as dirt.*

Nope.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost November 5, 2011 at 05:57

Well this is what MGTOW looks like. It looks like as predicted that the rulers are going to double down on the misandry and shaming. (not enough smart men making lots of money,lets make it easier to convict college boys with rape.)
I also think this trend is a natural default correction. These type of things scare me because nobady seems to know or care why and just continue with the agenda that got us here. You can only double down so many times until you go from men as second class citizens to nothing to lose.
I think the trend is natural and a good thing and I would like for us to keep up getting the word out on this to make it something men do on purpose. Beta types seem to just get things done. I like the idea of red pill betas understanding the power and defiance of “game” the PUA ,player growing in the MGTOWand MRA leader. (it’s the same man over a life time.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 05:58

@hermit
‘Is masculinity just a matter of money?”
No, it’s about dignity. It has nothing to do about money.’

It may not have anything to do with masculinity but it’s pretty hard to have dignity when you’re a pauper. Females will reject you as a a man of no value(to them) In every society that I know of, money (which is just a representation of goods or your ability to obtain goods) is equated with power and status. Even in a primitive society the guy with the best grass hut or beads is respected. This is just the way humans think. I guess that in our subconscious minds we think that anyone with the best stuff must be more special than the ordinary. In fact, this thinking must be so ingrained in us that even some moron who wins the lottery is given higher status than an average man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 06:00

Gx1080

I think you will find that as far as women are concerned, status is of very high importance. This can take many forms but just for simplicity; if a guy has plenty of money he has status if he is known as a hard man/gangster he will also be considered to have status. This is all about what women want their female friends to see/envy. This is also why we see an ever increasing rise in violent male thugs/gangs.

Here in the UK, over the last 30 years or so there has been a rapid rise in young thugs that carry knives and sometimes a gun. It’s all about pussy street cred status and power. At the lower end of the gang culture there is a lot less money around so the only way for a young dude to attract pussy without him having money and good job is for him to gain a reputation with the locals.

Perhaps you can now understand why the nice guy with a shitty job attracts minimum pussy. Well, unless he is targetted by a wallet seeking used up slapper that easily fools him into slipping on the yoke of provider, all under the illusion of Lurve. The poor guy thinks how lucky he is to have finally found his soul mate while she thinks what a feckin sucker of a plant pot she has hooked.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Bryan November 5, 2011 at 06:46

oddsock-

Are you saying those guys are thugs because they carry guns/knives or they are thugs who happen to carry guns/knives? I just wanted to get that distinction clear because in the USA the vast majority of people who carry knives/guns are NOT thugs.

I pretty much always carry 1-2 knives and 2 pistols with me everywhere I go. Indeed most of the guys I know carry some sort of knife for utility purposes and I know of at least 10-12 guys that carry a pistol for personal protection/defense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 06:47

@greyghost
‘I like the idea of red pill betas understanding the power and defiance of “game” the PUA ,player growing in the MGTOWand MRA leader. (it’s the same man over a life time.)’

What you call “game” is really just a con job where lower ranking men try to deceive females into thinking that they are higher ranking. This can never work because the men who try to learn this crap really are low ranking and it would be next to impossible to teach them how to be good con men. These guys couldn’t even con me so how are they going to con a female who from the age of 12 when she hit puberty she’s very attuned to a man’s class and is adept at signs and indications of this;they spend 1/2 their life talking about men with other females who will alos pick up on things she may have missed and any guy faking it will quickly be rumbled. And besides, any guy who is such a good con man doesn’t need lessons from Rosie, Mystery or any of these freaks, and he’s also good at conning his way into things to get money and is a natural alpha. The whole idea is dumb anyway because an average man can easily find an average female who will have sex with him and if you’re so far in the dweeb omega category no amount of “game” instruction will help you at the age of 20. This is something you should have been learning from kindergarten onward by socialising and having contact with females. If you think that by studying hese childish gamer techniques you’re going to overnight turn into the Amazing Mr. Ripley then you’re just deluding yourself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 7
Malcolm James November 5, 2011 at 06:57

This piece (about 5 years old) might be of interest.

http://www.pollycourtney.com/release-14.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
thehermit November 5, 2011 at 07:09

@avenger

Okay then, the most masculin man must be the one who the females find masculin (an elite MF with money and power in his hands). If this is true, then the masculinity really means money (power) and nothing else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Bryan November 5, 2011 at 07:11

Malcom, why is the “City” always with a capital C? Is that something unique/specific to London?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 07:35

the difference being that unharnessed female labor tends to be directed toward what I see as frivolous consumption (e.g., “pin money” as my grandmother called it),

I believe that term comes from small amounts of money used to buy inexpensive necessities like hat pins etc. to keep you rhat from blowing off ,and not to frivolous expensive consumption. And btw, hat pins were the favourite female weapon, from the days when females wore hats, to defend themselves from mashers. Females still worn hats when I was a boy so for you younger men a hat pin which was used to hold the hat on her head and keep it from blowing off in the wind sort of looked like a miniature 8″ long thin version of an ice pick. You could kill someone with a thing like that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 07:53

hermit writes ‘If this is true, then the masculinity really means money (power) and nothing else’

To a female it probably does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Common Monster November 5, 2011 at 07:56

Conservatives of a certain stripe have been shrieking like women about a “masculinity crisis” and “the demasculinaztion of males” for well more than a century. They’re always losing their heads and rushing to hit the panic button first thing, before they understand what’s happening. Their appeal is almost entirely emotional, designed as it is to get others to fall in line behind them. Yawn.

Prager derailed at #1, as far as I’m concerned. He’s drunk too much feminidiot kool-aid to have put that one out there first, or even seriously.

Only a manhole equates money with masculinity.

In almost every culture known, some important element(s) of masculinity have been defined as NOT-feminine. The more money women make, the less it becomes something masculine.

Esther Vilar: “American women, more than other women, fail to consider men as fellow human beings. And American men prefer to see themselves in this role: a man’s salary is the yardstick of his worth. … For the American male, masculinity is still associated directly with money.
The American man knows that happiness comes only through women, and women are expensive. He is ready to pay that price…”

I don’t think this is nearly as true, at least for some/many males, as it was 40+ years ago when Vilar wrote that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 08:22

Or is Vortac the name of some new pharma drug in trials and you’re a volunteer to test for cognitive side effects?

Well there is Valtrex to treat herpes :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Poochmule November 5, 2011 at 08:23

Well Put Monster

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 08:41

Now if you really want to see game in action watch the 1964 film, Nothing But The Best, with the late Alan Bates. His tutor was a ne’er do well upper class guy but at least he had a good looking guy to work with. These modern gamers like Rosie are working with inept nerds. As they say, ‘you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear” lol

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5
ecnayonna November 5, 2011 at 09:19

in the 30 to 40 age group in my area of Australia there seems to be mainly 2 types of women on the online dating sites. single mothers with kids, or career women who dont have much spare time.

i have been rated before as about a 7 in looks, i currently have a part time job doing full time hours, own everything but the unit i rent. but since i am a geek, i tend to show off some beta like tendencies.
needless to say i get friendzoned alot or suddenly dumped for some other guy rather rapidly.

Is Masculinity a Matter of Money? yes, but mainly to the women.

they want someone to provide, even after they made it harder for a man to get a job by taking it or leech more taxes off us to pay for their 3rd kid to a different father.

is this sorta thing leaving alot of men rather pissed off or just giving up? yeah i think so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Migu November 5, 2011 at 09:33

No, its about your ability to filch other men’s money. I thought we all knew that already?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
keyster November 5, 2011 at 09:36

“These modern gamers like Rosie are working with inept nerds. As they say, ‘you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear” lol.”

You need natural ability, untold ambition and a big dose of luck to excel beyond your dreams of achieving the power and status women crave in a man. Game tells young men none of this “work” is necessary if you can learn to refine your persona enough to convince women you’re one of those men, at least just long enough to get laid. Beyond short term gratification, it’s zero sum .

Used to be young men strived for excellence because that was enough and top-shelf pussy might have been a by-product. Now men strive for top-shelf pussy by “acting” like they’re excellent. No use fussing with all the stress of working hard at realizing your own greatness, when Game tells you faking it is much easier. All pussy is temporary in the end. That much they know.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
keyster November 5, 2011 at 09:54

But now that women have become equal to men (economically) they still naturally want men who are their superiors. Obviously not all men can be the super-hyper-alpha high status earners women desire. So they’re being shamed into “manning-up”, but there’s no where else to go beyond the level she’s already attained on her own!

The concept of Game is a reaction to the dynamic of women becoming “equal”, but yet still hypergamous. But it’s a false pretext for forming long-term commitment and doomed to failure. Once she realizes he’s merely equal to her, she becomes disgusted with him and divorces. She may fool herself into thinking equality is cool and hip and modern, but she HATES the fact he’s not better than her.

This is the situation the great social pundits and scientists of our time fail to see. They refuse to acknowledge female hypergamy because it shoots a big fat hole into feminism and women’s claims for equality. It’s the elephant in the room of the “gender war”, and our declining civilization.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
MWPeak November 5, 2011 at 10:21

By the time women are financially successful, they have only a short, desperate window to sort through potential mates, build a relationship and have a healthy baby—let alone the two or three children necessary to maintain replacement level population growth.

In this day and age, I am discouraged enough to ask whether populations and civilzation are even worth preserving. The preservation of men may have to take a cold, Social Darwin aspect, essentially men gaining strength until they can brutally defeat anything that threatens their survival, even women and children. Even civilization itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 10:24

Hmmm.

I have posted previously about game and PUA’s. Please don’t take this as advice it is simply my experience over many years.

I was raised a nice guy with the typical English overkill of politeness. Actually, I still try to be polite when poss and make a point of saying please thank you etc etc.

So hear is my synopsis.

Being raised a nice guy to be a responsible provider reasonable education with a skill and later quite a few professional quals was a IMHO either a big con or wrong for the changing times. My Father could obviously not see what lay ahead but I am sure he thought he was doing the correct and responsible thing.,,, I got shafted, dumped on from a great height, for being exactly what my Father and much of society had supposedly wanted of me, as a man.

Later in life, women and dating, being nice also sucked big time. I did have to fight it and to some extent, still do.

I have slightly above average good looks I was around 5’11″ (Shrank with age an inch) with almost black hair blue eyes and a very deep voice also a slightly thugish look. 46″ chest and 21″ neck. This alone was enough to attract female attention. The moment I started to be polite and nice they would lose interest.

The part that almost always changed the outcome was my sense of humour. When I am not being nice and polite I can quite happily cause a public scene I am very freindly and will laugh joke and tease any fecker. My sense of humour can be very cutting and I can also be very blunt and direct but always with a cheeky smirk. I had my face slapped a few times but even some of these I ended up humping. I remember a good friend of mine, a real good looking guy, brilliant guitarist etc once asking me how the feck I could get away with saying some of the outrageous things I did to women, and end up dating or humping them. He always seemed to get the cold shoulder or the dregs of women.
I couldn’t explain it to him, I didn’t really know myself. Ironically, although he was a bit of a character, he was, as far as women were concerned, a very nice guy.

Just my opinion. Being a nice guy only attracts women looking for a wage slave pack horse. Fine if that’s what you want. I tried it for years and would probably still have been one if the bints I had a LTR with had made even the slightest effort. I still have a few friends that are still in that very same position, mind you, most hate their wife and I know of at least two that have not even slept in the same bed for years let alone have sex. One sleeps on the couch and has done for at least 10 years. He works away quite a lot and he tells me its by choice, he can’t stand being near his wife.

IMHO looks don’t really matter that much except for initial attraction. A good sense of humour is a must and not just for attracting women it is a major part of having a reasonably pleasant life. I also learned to laugh at my own child like stupidity, still do. The ego is a farce.

P.s Don’t try this at home. You really do not need to learn PUA techniques, everything you need to know is written on the Spearhead and many other MRA sites. Quite an oxymoron really. Reading MRA sites and PUA’s will probably give you just enough confidence to feel relaxed enough to not give a feck, eventually. Then I suggest, you will start to realize it is all a big con and you have been gamed all your life taking you right back to the opening sentence of this very post.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9
Rebel November 5, 2011 at 10:51

“It’s the elephant in the room of the “gender war”, and our declining civilization.”

I think we should welcome the decline. Civilization as we know it is taking us into the ditch.

The more prosperous a country becomes, the more feminism gets toxic.
Civilization carries in and of itself the seeds of its own destruction through the female part.

The richest countries live under the feminist yoke, while the poorest ones don’t have to cope with the malady.
(Think of Libya, cast back to the dark ages and enjoying now a brand new sharia law).
How important is it if Prada shoes become unavailable?
And how important is it to have a Phd in hair splitting?
Do we really need color Teevee? Do we need the latest car on display?
Do we need expensive perfumes. We should go back to the days when a woman on the rag was really on a rag, not tampons that pollute the waters: a r.a.g—rag!

Things were not so complicated then..

The coming world economic crisis will be very beneficial to men.

It will also be beneficial to women as they will become human again (perhaps).

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
Rocco November 5, 2011 at 12:22

With this money mentality and the lack of future plans for the marriage to succeed the exessive spending starts right away as soon as the relationship is cemented with a ring or a kid.

Then when the money runs out your out, and you will not be recieving 2 weeks notice. Most likely you’ll here it from a cop or a lawyer.

I am starting to think that China, who is heavily invested in the west coast of the US in real estate, saw how war over divorce has destroyed the housing market.

Since there is no stable family and only the rare single can afford a house, the housing market crashed taking a lot of peoples life savings with it.

The rising divorce rate due to western cultural feminist imperialism is starting it’s destruction of China from within…it will be interesting to see what a centrally planned government does to fight the destructive forces of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
Josh November 5, 2011 at 12:34

@AVenger

“This is something you should have been learning from kindergarten onward by socialising and having contact with females.”

Many boys are ostracized as young as kindergarten and once that happens, it will usually continue throughout their school life because they will generally be in school with the same people. For instance, I had zero social interaction growing up because the other children hated me and it only got worse as we got older and they learned how to interact and I simply developed sad and pathetic ways of trying to get other kids attention. For instance, self deprecating humour. One good example of this would be I would smash my head into things very hard, to the point of seeing stars, just to get children to laugh. When I finally got to high school, the girls there thought I was attractive, until the kids I was with in elementary school destroyed my reputation as quickly as they could. Popular kids love to destroy other kids lives from what I’ve seen. I’m just trying to get you to see, that not everyone has it so easy to learn social skills. Many kids had no friends or social interaction growing up, it’s not their fault that kids are cruel little bastards.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 12:47

Bryan

There is a huge difference in UK and USA weapon law. I can’t remember the actual size but I think it is considered that any knife over two inches in length is an offensive weapon. If anyone is found to have a knife greater in length they must prove it is a tool for their work or something similar. Self defence is not accepted and you would be charged with carrying an offensive weapon and depending on the circumstance, probably with intent to commit an act of violence. Being caught with a gun usually results in the light infantry being called out.

There was a case a few years back in which a Farmer shot and killed a burglar with his shot gun. The poor guy was old and had his house broken into a few times previously.He was sent to prison on the grounds of it not being considered reasonable force. I think he was convicted of Manslaughter ? Here in the UK we are not allowed to fight back. Even trying to prove you was acting in self defence is almost a pointless exercise.

Regarding the use of the capital C in City. It’s quite an old grammar style. I often forget and do the same. Many moons ago, when they use to teach correct English, it was the norm to capitalize places proffesions such as Teacher or Doctor and quite a few others with a capital letter. Even the spelling has changed quite a bit, there is now a greater use of the letter Z in place of S in fact, I think it used to be capitalise and not capitalize? There was also an awful lot more punctuation back then. Feckin commas every feckin where ! Hahah I even remember being made to stay behind and practice making my hand writing ( Long hand ) letters vertical. Only a very slight tilt to the right was allowed. Anything else was not acceptable and usually resulted in the Teacher asking you if you was some lower class street urchin type.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Malcolm James November 5, 2011 at 14:15

Bryan

‘The City’ refers specifically to the financial institutions in the City of London. Therefore ‘working in the City’ means working for a bank or similar in the City of London.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 14:21

Malcolm James

It is quite confusing even for Brits to grasp.

City of London is the name of the financial sector and has it’s own recognised boundaries, it’s a small area within the actual city of London.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Joe Zamboni November 5, 2011 at 14:50

One thing I don’t see in the US these days is any woman (not one) expressing intentions to love, honor, obey, or otherwise support a man. Although those words used to be part of Christian marriage vows, they are increasingly out of favor (especially “obey”). With women never expressing any intentions whatsoever to make a man’s life better because he marries her, it is truly astounding to me that any men are still getting married. The focus is now entirely on the woman, what the woman wants, and what the woman gets out of it (and that is primarily money, even if the marriage is of very short duration, and even if there is never a marriage – consider the money damages occasionally awarded for failing to follow through on a commitment to marry).

I’m sorry but, the women I know aren’t all that great at being friends, and sex with women is not all that great… after you have been married a few times, as I have, then men realize that companionship and sex that women provide is WAY WAY overblown, and marriage is absolutely NOT worth it for men. It’s absolutely not worth 18 years of child support payments, or worse yet, a lifetime of alimony payments. And it is absolutely not worth having to split your assets 50/50 just because you made your union legal in the form of a marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni November 5, 2011 at 15:18

While we are on the topic of money, it is interesting that Wikipedia has apparently deleted the previously-existing page entitled “gold-digging.” Now users seeking out the discussion about gold-digging are directed to the totally irrelevant “age disparity in sexual relationships.” I can only surmise that this is another editorial maneuver on the part of the editors over at Wikipedia, intended to further defang the aggressive wolfs in the Men’s Rights Movement. Readers will no doubt remember that John the Other (at A Voice For Men) reported how Wikipedia editors recently gutted and censored the page devoted to the Men’s Rights Movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/to-the-censors-at-wikipedia/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
oddsock November 5, 2011 at 15:33

Josh

I agree, and would add that it sometimes only takes one kid, usually the bully to decide some other kid is not to be liked and all the others follow, usually from fear of recieving the same treatment.

Anyway a tad late but at least you are among friends now.

P.s. The self depreciating humour can also be a good thing. It keeps your ego in check.

It has been said that the problem with most bullies is that they have low self esteem or low ego. This is totally wrong. They have too much ego and an unhealthy very high esteem. Thankfully, at some point or other it is usually deflated and sometimes by force.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
MRA November 5, 2011 at 15:58

Women these days don’t have anything to offer to men, before modern appliances(created by men) women and specially feminist complain about women doing hard housework now they are still complaining because they have housework and jobs outside the home at the same time, 1950s women of all ages needed to behave in front of people and were ladies.

Women needed to learn how to cook at soon they could walk, a 10 years wold girl could cook a turkey without problem, they didn’t insult men calling anything they wanted without consequences, a men slapped a women if she dare to insult him and men and WOMEN would say she deserve it. AngryHarry wrote something I quote:

“50 years ago, if a man slapped his wife, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were usually of the view that she deserved it in some way.”

Women were so classy that they even use glove if they were going outside the home. http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h187/StabArtToDeath1/1950-housewife.jpg

Now they are so irresponsible that they CHOICE to wear provocative and if you look is your fault.

What modern women have to offer to modern men? sex? they are bad even in that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
bruno November 5, 2011 at 18:36

Is masculinity a matter of money?

Yes for women it is.

A man has value, in a woman’s eyes, to the degree that she feels that she can get money out of him.

Most women dream about a life of luxury and careless enjoyment.
They want to live in a nice house, drive a nice car, wear expensive clothes, take many holidays, etc…

And guess what… they don’t want to pay for it.

They want a man to pay for it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Robert the Street Philosopher King November 5, 2011 at 19:16

So, I wasn’t getting many hits on plentyoffish but I am a handsome devil (sorry, but if you are, you know) and I thought I’d run an experiment. I started mentioning that I was new in town and looking to buy a house. (All true) “Go downtown much? I’m thinking of buying a house down here but have no grip on the market as I’m new in town.” (Not the cheapest real estate in town.) Many women now ask to meet up in the first response, and quite eagerly. Many others at least respond and with a delighted tone….. nuf said about the nature of women. $$ Oh, and I’m messaging the hottest ones I can find now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5
drunicusequus November 5, 2011 at 19:40

It seems ridiculous that after 30 years of society handing women huge advantages in education and hiring, there’s some sort of complaint that we’re either not making enough money, or not interested in using it to support women.
Well, why? When porn, prostitutes, and single women are in steady supply, why would we?
I love being a husband and father, but I’m married to an.unusually high quality woman who works incredibly hard to keep a nice hone & raise our children.
The grouchy, aggressive, dishonest, finicky “women ” I encounter at work I find, in general, to be very unnattractive. They often make up large swathes of a firm’s middle to upper middle management.
Small wonder they’re single or divorced.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 20:08

@Josh

One good example of this would be I would smash my head into things very hard, to the point of seeing stars, just to get children to laugh
This guy is still doing it lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8GJYTyIuU

When I finally got to high school, the girls there thought I was attractive, until the kids I was with in elementary school destroyed my reputation

Did you ever consider breaking a few bones? :) Then the girls would really think you’re hot.

I’m just trying to get you to see, that not everyone has it so easy to learn social skills. Many kids had no friends or social interaction growing up, it’s not their fault that kids are cruel little bastards.

Yes, kids are generally little bastards but the fact that you couldn’t adapt in any way tells me that it’s more of a personality defect and that trying to learn some conjob called game is not going to work. There are some things you have to learn when you’re young.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3
Joe Zamboni November 5, 2011 at 20:09

@ Robert the Street Philosopher King

Thanks for telling us how you’re flaunting your wealth, and how shamelessly many women all of a sudden are paying a lot of attention. The problem with this approach is that you are attracting the gold-diggers, particularly the most aggressive ones. They may be hot in the looks department, but they aren’t interested in you, they’re interested in your money. Now that’s fine if you have totally given up on women — decided that they are all just whores, and that it’s all about money for sex.

But if you have any hope of being in an extended relationship with a special woman who loves you for yourself, not your money, I don’t believe this is an advisable strategy. Although this may be a rather unpopular thing for me to say on this web site, and perhaps I am unrealistically idealistic here, I will say it anyway because it’s my truth: I believe there are still a few women out there who are not only interested in money. I did not say that they are indifferent to money. I want to be with these women, and have a LTR with these women (I did not say marriage), and that’s why I make absolutely no displays of my money. If they notice indirect displays of intelligence, or fame, or accomplishments, OK, but I keep the money very much hidden.

I believe that older women (40s -50s) are more likely to fall into this less materialistic group. Perhaps because they know their looks are fading, and that the ratios of men to women are increasingly going in the favor of men as they get older, perhaps because they no longer seek money to provide for their children, but whatever the reason, I am most apt to find this less-materialistic type of woman in that age range.

The younger ones are outrageously and surprisingly openly materialistic. And it’s not just in the US. Consider the linked story from China. Many young women there will not even consider dating a guy unless he already owns a house, preferably a car too. To marry a man who doesn’t own a house is said to be a “naked marriage” (too risky for most women).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 20:11

@Robert
$$ Oh, and I’m messaging the hottest ones I can find now

So what are you going to do when they meet you and see you’re a poor schmuck? lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
nugganu November 5, 2011 at 20:17

You lot would love Toronto. Most spoiled, entitled bitches in the universe. My fat, aging ex girlfriend is still holding out for her George Clooney.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Skeptic November 5, 2011 at 20:33

Yesterday I watched the movie ‘Heartbreakers’.
It was horrific and fascinating to see the heartless gold digging techniques used by the mother-daughter duo portrayed in the movie.
Thinking about it afterwards I realized they very skillfully portrayed female game and that women’s pop culture – magazines, websites etc are full of advice on how to use female game to manipulate men.
The newer male game community think they’re onto something with their pick up techniques. I reckon they’re light years behind the women who are gaming them before they even open their mouths with their falseness – make up, hair perms and dye, push up bras, high heels etc etc.
What’s more the legions of female gamers get a double win. For as the male gamers invest so much time and expense in chasing tail they’re distracted from taking political action to overturn myriad of misandric laws and conventions.
There’s a huge irony in this too.
I see male gamers and PUA go on ad infinitum about developing their ‘inner game’ – ability to change themselves by faking it until they make it etc (Alpha status).
Yet none apparently have the intestinal fortitude to swear off women sexually in order to devote themselves to helping their brothers as full time MRAs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost November 5, 2011 at 20:46

Avenger
“If you think that by studying hese childish gamer techniques you’re going to overnight turn into the Amazing Mr. Ripley then you’re just deluding yourself.”
You are wrong on this. game is the understanding of female hypergamy. Every man has to learn and understand this. As an MRA a good thing to do is study game read the articles. Read the comments from the young men and see where they are. Dalrock has a good site that is a promarriage site that sticks it to women but not so hard they run off. I would not think of telling any committed MRA to learn game to get laid. Fuck that. I will tell a 15-25 year old to learn game and I think all MRA’s would do men in general right by learning and understanding game. The old way and the subject of the aricle was to do well in education gaet a job get a good job and get a better job and acheive wealth and security and with the confidence one would have doing so a loving bride will be yours. Fuck that too. (see Welmer Price and half the men here) I fully encourage the player and mock the groom all of the time. The PUA and video gamers and MGTOW are our best weapons against feminism and misandry. The Three together will cause the most pain. Bill Bennett just told us. Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IItf23mqgg That is Paul Elam
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/ This is one article from Heartiste on Game
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/all-the-lonely-feminist-spinsters/ This is an article from Dalrock. put all three together and you see they all lead to Old involuntary childless spinsterhood. It is very important to get a female past her childbearing years. PUA using hypergamy can do that for us. Now we have the the carousel rider looking for a chump. Dalrock has been collecting data and writing articles about them. here is with a hamster http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-post-marital-spinsters-rationalization-hamster-in-the-final-stages-of-exhaustion/ this will be a master piece when done by men on an involuntary basis. http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2010/11/feminist-liz-jones-to-suffer-another.html This is where my head is at as an MRA. I have my red pill and now I’m ready discuss ways to take action. And also spread some ideas on how related eeach group of men are and how we are working for a real goal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 21:51

@Zamboni

‘and that’s why I make absolutely no displays of my money’

As I mentioned above, females have a 6th sense about this and even when I’m trying to be as ordinary as possible they’ll pick up some clue. I never discuss money or any other personal thing(it’s a bad idea to do this anyway with anyone) I never even ask them what they do (I can figure this out quickly anyway and know what I’m dealing with) If I’m in a bar/restaurant sort of place in a city the girl usually lives nearby and I walk her home so she doesn’t even see my car parked nearby. I’ve never worn any jewellery. Yet, despite all of this a female as I said above is attuned to every nuance and subtle clues. Even if a female is a perfectly decent woman and not a golddigger it is their nature to want to find out information when it comes to a man and they spend a lot of time exchanging info with other females. Most men don’t notice subtle differences in other men(except a Holmes or Dr. House type like me :) ) but a female will. Let’s take two identical men (make them twins so there’s no bias) They are both dressed in what appears to be an identical way-sports jacket, trousers and black shoes. I can guarantee you that a female will know whick guy is wearing brand x and which is wearing Gucci shoes and a Burberry sportscoat even though there are no labels showing. Females are constantly studying everything about a man (and probably their competition other females too) just like your dog knows everything about you. If you’re wearing cologne she’ll almost always know the difference between brand x and Creed at $200 a bottle. In the days before cell phones she’d know where you lived if you gave her your # and would know that Greenwich is a lot better than Bridgepoet. I’m not making any judgements on these things myself but just telling you how a female thinks. They are all materialistic maily because her whole reproductive life depends upon it. A female will always try to get the most competent man of means that her looks and other qualities will get her.It’s their nature so there’s no point in complaining about it just as a man looks for certain qualities in a female and will go for the best one he’s able to get.
Game is nonsense and you’ll never teach an omega how to be an alpha which is what the whole thing is about. There are just too many variables involved and a lot of good acting and planning in trying to con females into believing some omega is an well off alpha.
What’s even funnier is “marriage game”. You may be able to occasionally con some stranger with “game” but how can you con some female who lives with you and knows everything about you?
I used to listen to Tom Leykis on the net. Leykis is some 50 something fat fugly guy who was married four times and the whole show was aimed at losers with Leykis as the “professor”. He definately knew his audience and probably made money at it although it appears that he’s been unemployed now for years. I listened because he was amusing and to the crazy advice he’d give these boys who called who he would teach “game” to. It was all bullshit just like that 7 figure salary he claimed to be making and that he never paid a penny to any of his former 4 wives.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Avenger November 5, 2011 at 22:55

But I would also remind you that many men have pursued these goals not for money but for the satisfaction that comes from doing something well and, in many cases, in service to some cause higher than themselves.

You can count these wacky types on one hand.

Many of them lived in poverty and obscurity, and only achieved a post-mortem fame

So what good was that to females? Or to themselves? And btw, they didn’t plan on being poor their entire lives, it just turned out that way. I’m sure that they would have been happier to have wealth when they were alive.
These stories about men who invented or achieved something only after their death and died in poverty are all overblown anyway mostly because they appeal to the average loser.
For every crazy Van Gogh who lived off his brother there were a hundred competent artists who were well off during their lifetimes. Picasso, Dali, Andy Warhol etc etc were wealthy while they were alive.
Edison was rich during his lifetime.
Gates and Jobs were rich.
I really can’t think of many men who accomplished anything who were not also well off during their lifetime(or at the very least go some sort of recognition)
Even Jesus had wealthy patrons who would put him up in their mansions and give him dinners. You didn’t believe he lived in a goatshed, did you?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
Malcolm James November 6, 2011 at 00:57

Oddsock

If you want to refer to the geographical entity you refer to the ‘City of London’. Just ‘the City’ is a term meaning the banks and insurance companies etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 6, 2011 at 01:40

Malcolm-everyone knows that when you say the City it means that area of about a sq. mile to the East near the tower where London bridge is located. Yes, the City also means the financial section like Wall St does in NY for the entire area. The City is the original area of Roman Londinium and this is also the area that burnt in the great fire in the 1600′s. The St Paul’s that you see today replaced the original one which was destroyed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 6, 2011 at 01:16

@ghost

‘You are wrong on this. game is the understanding of female hypergamy’

Wow! You don’t say. It’s a good thing that Rosie and Mystery came along or we’d still be in the dark ages about this lol

Listen, regardless of what a female’s mating instinct may be it is irrelevant because “game” will never be able to teach nerds and guys who have defects that make females reject them even before the guy opens his mouth. Do you really believe that you can overcome a female’s initial impression of you by a few pickup lines that she’s heard a 100x especially if you’re 5’2″ and she already has a negative impression of you?You’ll be like that door to door vacuum salesman who gets the door slammed in his face by the housewife as soon as she sees who’s at the door. These people trying to sell game to the vulnerable are no different than these fake preachers that get poor people to send them money in hopes that the Lord will bless them (with money lol) Just desparate people being given a false sense of hope while some conman is making the money off them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
greyghost November 6, 2011 at 02:17

Well Avenger I didn’t expect you to jump up and down with excitement over my comment. We are very close to turning the corner on this. Maybe a couple guys that got the point and can see that male sexuality is real and has to be taken into account. And besides that I can’t argue with this.
“Do you really believe that you can overcome a female’s initial impression of you by a few pickup lines that she’s heard a 100x especially if you’re 5’2? and she already has a negative impression of you?You’ll be like that door to door vacuum salesman who gets the door slammed in his face by the housewife as soon as she sees who’s at the door. These people trying to sell game to the vulnerable are no different than these fake preachers that get poor people to send them money in hopes that the Lord will bless them (with money lol) Just desparate people being given a false sense of hope while some conman is making the money off them.”
You know I’ve change a whole lot since I’ve started to call myself an MRA. I used to think MGTOW was a bunch of losers. I used to say exact say thing you said about game. I still believe and know marriage game is absolute bullshit on the surface and underneath too. It is just a survival technique for a man to survive second class citizenship.
Instead of this stupid arguement what are your goals and why are you an MRA ? Let’s take it from there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
Robert the Street Philosopher King November 6, 2011 at 14:52

@ Joe Zamboni “Thanks for telling us how you’re flaunting your wealth….” Your welcome. My, what effiminate irascibility. Oh, and I realize that these are gold diggers and not quality women, but aren’t they all? BTW, not interested in women twice my age.
@ Avenger “So what are you going to do when they meet you and see you’re a poor schmuck? lol” Yeah, that won’t happen, ‘casue I’m not broke. Is someone a wittle jealous? Do you know me?
So the point was how materialistic these women were, and it proved it. I’ve always been amused at all of the “game” talk on this forum, excuse me for playing. Yeah, you don’t know how bad those comments make you look. Simple, unbridled, emotion. I’m not bragging to the rest of the group on here. I should hope most of you have money as many seem to be twice my age. Or did you get burned in a divorce and learned the hard way? That’s right, I’m bragging to these cunts about what they wanna here. Joe, you’re right, your in the minority if you think there are good, young women out there!!!
So I would like to hear one of you (or those who “liked”) reconcile all of this braggadocious game talk with your lashing out at me. WHAT? Oh, you don’t talk about your money to them but “game, blah, blah, blah…” How is that not good game? I think there may be a lot of phonies on this site. You look jealous, but your self sufficient, MGTOW, etc. ….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8
fmz November 6, 2011 at 15:09

Whilst there’s the spruiking element of Game, where the players are really playing the punters for a buck, there’s also the underlying utility of the philosophy and its method. Notwithstanding the psych analysis of players, game really does reverse the whole charade, most significantly helping guys understand the basic truth that what one side has is a function of what the other gives away. Whilst the modus is very tedious and ultimately empty, the insight is very useful for guys who want to interact in a particular way.

Otherwise, the ultimate approach to the social tug of war is to learn how to walk, vote with your feet and GYOW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 6, 2011 at 19:21

@ Avenger “So what are you going to do when they meet you and see you’re a poor schmuck? lol” Yeah, that won’t happen, ‘casue I’m not broke. Is someone a wittle jealous? Do you know me?

The question was not about your being indigent or a pauper but whether you could pass yourself off as a well off man who really was looking to buy propery in an expensive area. I doubt it very much as no amount of learning “game” will help. And btw, who are you actually trying to con? Some fat older loser female you met on one of those dating sites? lol These types would go out with anyone just for a little attention or a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Try your conjob “game” with some wealthier young good looking educated female and then see how far you get.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
E-Sizzle November 6, 2011 at 19:52

I once dated a girl who used to work at the same factory I did. We were on a date once and she kept talking about how terrible it was to work there and how people who stayed there (not mentioning me directly) were trapped in terrible lives. I don’t know what she was getting at but she sounded terribly sanctimonious to me when she was saying it.

I stopped calling her after that. A dead halt. She called me once. Didn’t have the guts to ask why I dumped her, though I knew it was on her mind. It was considered a rude thing to do amongst the circle we ran in, ie, I was the jerk. But to my mind she was telegraphing that she considered my job the most important thing about me. No thanks.

If my ability to make money is the main thing a woman is interested in, well, that’s why there are whores. Whores are honest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Avenger November 6, 2011 at 23:01

Keyster writes ‘You need natural ability, untold ambition and a big dose of luck to excel beyond your dreams of achieving the power and status women crave in a man. Game tells young men none of this “work” is necessary ‘

And that is why “game” is just bullshit sold to the naive losers by guys like Mystery who are nerds themselves but are smart enough to know what sells.
Mystery picks up a few pieces of pop psychology from here and there without understanding them in their totality or in context(a little learning is a dangerous thing) and then sets himself up as an expert teaching desparate inept boys how to get pussy.
Let me take just one of this Mystery guy’s techniques having to do with appearance. Now, we all know that females are sort of attrated to the guy who looks a bit different or is a bit unique in his dress or somewhat outré (like in those vampire films) but the guy still has to be good looking to begin with and that’s not something you can fake. Let me give you some real Psycology. A first impression of a person is based entirely on their appearance and even in cases where the impression was wrong it may take 5 years of knowing that person and even knowing that your first impression was wrong to correct that initial impression. Females are very good at sizing a man up based on his appearance in a second. A female doesn’t even have to look at a man and just a 1 sec. impression from the corner of her eye is enough to tell her what she wants to know.
Mystery picks up this bit of information about how females are sort of attracted to men who have something unique in their dress but what does he do? He buys some silly looking hat and paints his nails black and tries to pass himself off as the genuine article. But this is never going to fly because he just looks like some poor man’s version of a clown. Or a Yankee Doodle
Yankee Doodle went to town riding on a pony.
Stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni

That’s just a parody of some yokel who thought he was a fop (macaroni) simply because he put a feather on his hat and would get girls.

“And with the girls be handy” was sung in a mocking laughing tone

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Will Penny November 7, 2011 at 03:53

Ha. Take that Hymowitz and Bennet.

Excellent article, Jack.

I wish this article would appear on CNN like Bennet’s did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric26 November 7, 2011 at 05:17

@Keyster

Beating your child with a belt is against the law. That is child abuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Firepower November 7, 2011 at 06:21

Michael

Talk about shaming language!!!

good to see you have the mrm buzzwords memorized, next comes the entire lexicon and maybe a few concepts.

Don’t want to push it, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
beta_plus November 7, 2011 at 09:18

Civilization is the optimization point between wealth generation and sexuality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 7, 2011 at 11:06

oddsod

I have slightly above average good looks I was around 4’11? (Shrank with age an inch) with almost black hair blue eyes and a very deep voice also a slightly thugish look. 58? waist and 21? neck.

Oy, mate – doesn’t British free healthcare give you limes for that goiter?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jon December 27, 2011 at 14:43

I disagree with it all. Simply put, the path to be a man is to not play the game at all. Let go of it all. Engage that Prefrontal Cortex, meditate, and transcend. We all have the power of choice. You can let your biology control you…but is that predestiniation? Where is free will? Furthermore, I believe that the current economic and political system that the elite, or those with designer educations and pedigrees created like said, have created what works for them; and what works to keep peace amongst us savage beasts. So…Why not transcend into something else that destroys our egos….like Buddhism or another spiritual endeavor. I would argue that Freud’s perspective on why men seek in attaining resources. The premise is that more resources means more access to hot ass. Sultans did it, why can’t I in 2011? Women are brainwashed to believe that they can have sex like us….more the merrier, right? Truth of the matter, most women would forgo work, if their spouse made say…120K a year with health and benefits. Hell, I would. Money is nothing but a tool, but it also coveys absolute power. With money, the sky is the limit. Nothing has changed since Rome, and I don’t see the new economic system changing anything, it’s just letting more people think they can have the riches and carnal pleasures as did Sultans….and unfortunately….man’s desire is his worst own enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GermanGrrl July 5, 2012 at 22:40

I think having lots of money gives you more (financial) power. If you are really rich you can buy status symbols (which may strengthen self-confidence), you can – if neccessairy – “buy” “friends” (or at least people who hang out with you and maybe bootlick you) and you (your money) will be attracted to many potential partners.

BUT:
Although I always read (I absolutley don’t care about a man’s income) that women want a breadwinner, the wealthier the better, everything else is second-rank, I can’t really believe that.

Do you know the film “Titanic”? I think most women would prefer poor “Jack” and not the other (rich) guy.
Because Jack has charisma, bravery, a really life-affirming, warm personality and is real interested in Kate. He does not treat her as a status symbol like her fiancé.

I think it’s not enough to just put the focus on appearances. Most people look through that instinctivley sooner or later.
I’m not saying that rich men are “pussys” or something like that, I want to say that there should be more than just money. Otherwise the people will only stay for the money, not for oneself.

It’s like “academic title authority”, fake authority.
Imagine you work for a chef who is clearly not a “real” Alpha (or at least less “Alpha” than you), but he “tops” you, because he has a higher job qualification and position, maybe he even bullys you and you know you have to be under his obedience although every primal instict screams against that , that could to be a very difficult situation for a man or am I wrong?

I’ve seen a movie a few weeks ago that shows what I mean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krZZabaC_U

The man with the glasses is the client who pays them.
He has more money, a good job, is well educated and successfull and his girlfriend is the ex-girlfriend from the Alpha of the local man group etc. BUT he is quite unmanly and has absolutley no “natural” authority.
The other men cant really attack him openly because they work for him, but they clearly don’t respect him. Passive-aggressive behavior often is the consequence.

I think money does not make manly, but it makes rich^^

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 6 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: