Decoding The Behavior Of American Women

by Featured Guest on May 16, 2012

By Joe Zamboni

Definition: Hypergamy is a word that most men never heard of, but it is essential that all heterosexual men know not only what it is, but also how it works. The concept posits that that adult women are endlessly looking for the bigger-better-deal when it comes to men. They will abandon their husband, boyfriend, lover, friend, whoever the man is, if it means that they can hook-up with a more powerful, more famous, and/or richer man. Don’t think that just because you the man have done pretty well along these lines, that you are not subject to the instant departure of a woman who has been with you for a long time. Loyalty is nothing in comparison to the force of hypergamy. Words of commitment, diamond rings on their fingers, public promises for “better or worse,” all that means nothing. Their sense of self-interest and their looking to trade-up outweigh every other consideration.

Millions of years of evolutionary processes have brought this about. Women needed protection and resources, in order to be taken care of, and in order to make sure that their children were taken care of. The women who were successful with this strategy were the ones who got to reproduce and create the next generation. And they went on to teach their daughters how to use this same hypergamy strategy. Over time, women leveraged the notion of chivalry and got men to support new laws to facilitate this same strategy (no fault divorce laws for example). Hypergamy has for eons simply been a matter of survival. You the man can have your own reaction to that fact, including perhaps deluding yourself that you have found a “woman who is different.” But watch out, when the bigger-better-deal comes along, she may be out the door in a “New York minute.”

Differences: The classic philosophers like Aristotle and Locke — while brilliant and enlightened men — did not understand women. They appealed to conceptual ethics like fairness, honesty, loyalty, and truth. This is how men think and operate; these notions are what men use to make decisions. Men need to get that women don’t operate that way. Women are biologically and genetically programmed to go with the bigger-better-deal. Feminist rhetoric about equality is nothing in the face of hypergamy. Women act this way unconsciously; it is part of their most basic and fundamental makeup.

Women will take great care to make it seem as though they support their man’s values, but that is because they want to be part of the man’s winning team. But when the bigger-better-deal comes along, they will instantly change their values so that they can better merge with the new man’s scene. No matter how good things are for women, they will always be looking out for the more advantageous situation.

The speed with which women “change” can, and often does, shock their husbands. When these women ask for a divorce, many men are truly taken off guard. This is because they have been taken in by women’s representations that they share their man’s values. Be warned, this “alignment” of values is in most cases not the truth at all. In spite of what appearances may indicate, women did not change their values, they simply changed the man they were hooked-up with. If a particular woman truly shares a man’s values, she should have been acting in life the way he was before they met, and she should have been acting this same way while outside an intimate relationship. Be wary when a woman takes up a new interest in a cause or hobby at the same time she hooks-up with a particular man. She most likely is not genuinely interested in that cause or hobby, she is simply interested in hooking up with that man. Like a chameleon, she is simply adapting, simply making herself compatible with his winning world.

Denial: So many men delude themselves with the well-worn phrase “not all women are like that” (NAWALT). So for example you may say, “yes, many women are like that, but my woman is devoted and loyal.” But really, come on, what hard evidence is there that she demonstrably acted that way before you came along? And what prevents her from abandoning that value if and when the bigger-better-deal comes along? If you really get this, you will see that it is no mistake that 70% of American divorces are now initiated by women. Many of them are simply trading-up to the bigger-better-deal, or at least they hope to soon do so. And big daddy government with the welfare, child support, alimony, and other subsidies especially for women in many cases is the bigger-better-deal.

Most men (and women) don’t want to admit the operation of hypergamy, but it is absolutely critical that heterosexual men understand how women operate in this regard. It is especially important to get this before these men get married (note — this author is strongly discouraging marriage). Unless you the man have really gotten this point, you will be surprised and shocked, you will feel abandoned and disillusioned, and you will feel betrayed and conned. You need to get that the marriage vows “for better and for worse,” and “for richer and for poorer” — all that is bullshit. These words are words that the man must by law live by, not the woman. They are one-sided obligations; they are totally inconsistent with real-world women’s hypergamy-related behavior.

This is not a pleasant point to admit, but if heterosexual men operate in the dark on this point, they are severely disadvantaged, and they will accordingly most likely be exploited by women. Why do women love romance novels? It’s about the taming and submission of men, the getting of men to serve women’s interests. Romance novels are female porn. Because they are dreams of being protected and provided for, exactly the way they want to be — by rich, powerful, and famous men. Read a few of these romance novels to really understand this. You only need to read a few — they are pretty much all focused on different variations on this same hypergamy theme. One recent hit along these lines is Fifty Shades Of Grey, by E.L. James.

To the extent that men buy into the Hollywood romance bullshit, they operate in a fog of infatuation, and then they can be led to think that women share their values. Hollywood romance is about as far away from reality as you can get. Sure, happily ever after, fading into the sunset, that would be nice. But get men who have been married and divorced to honestly level with you, and they will tell you that the Hollywood romance story is total bullshit. It’s a society-supported con game that seeks to lure men into marriage. Women deeply believe that they need a man to take care of them. Women thus endlessly seek men who are going to provide and protect, no matter what the feminists tell them. A couple of decades of feminist indoctrination cannot overcome thousands of years of evolution.

The relationship between the sexes is and always has been by its very nature asymmetrical. What is expected of men is very different from and unequal to what is expected of women. More is being asked of men, and women know it. So there must be a protracted and drawn-out process of convincing the man to get married. In support of this process, women engage in all sorts of cons and deceits in order to convince the bigger-better-deal that they are the woman for him. This convincing process includes making the man believe that they view the world in the same way he does. Make-up, hair-color, push-up bras, breast augmentation surgery, and many other methods and devices are only more marketing and deceit on the part of women so that they can attract and land the bigger-better-deal. It’s a hunting process, and the men are the prey.

Intentions: From the female perspective, mating is fundamentally a search for security. That’s one big reason why women push for marriage. Marriage makes men responsible to protect and provide for a woman, in legal ways that he was not obligated to deliver up until that point. Marriage is the primary mechanism that women use to leverage themselves up the ladder, up to the next bigger-better-deal. Of course, even though they are no longer with the woman involved, the prior husbands are still expected to provide (less so protect these days since government is doing more of that).

The modern intention for American women is to get several asset splits with different men as a result of divorces, and add to that several income streams (primarily alimony and child support), ideally having all the income streams all going at the same time. It’s a pretty great deal if you can do it, and the most conniving and most attractive of women can pull it off. But that doesn’t stop the other women from attempting to pull off the same con job. The only thing standing in the way of this continued exploitation of men is men’s full awareness of the game.

Application: If you the man really understand hypergamy, then all sorts of social practices that previously had no logical explanation will all of sudden start to make sense. Why for example are men still expected to pay for dates? Of course, it is preparation for marriage, and the providing and protecting that men are supposed to be delivering within the institution of marriage. Paying for dates is a “shit test” that men have to put up with in order to “prove” themselves to women. If a particular man will pay for dates, then he will probably also later pay alimony and child support.

As a man, the best ways for you to protect yourself against this force of this evolutionary history, against the hypergamy push of heterosexual women, is to: (1) not have any children (“the snip” is strongly recommended), (2) not cohabitate with a woman, and (3) not get married. The justifying details behind these three recommendations are beyond the scope of this article, but if you simply remember these three recommendations, you are going to be far ahead of your exploited and conned brethren in the brotherhood of men.

{ 158 comments… read them below or add one }

Dubliner May 16, 2012 at 11:35

Sounds like a great life.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
AfOR May 16, 2012 at 11:43

off topic, but relevant–ish

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/1085/

and

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/1084/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
AfOR May 16, 2012 at 11:48

On topic

hypergamy does not merely mean trading up from YOUR ass to another man, many, many, many wimminz will trade up to apparently no man, but a virtual man, the state, because this rids them of YOUR influence in their lives, and simultaneously opens the wallet of the state a bit further.

ask me how I know… lol

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 95 Thumb down 1
Traveller May 16, 2012 at 11:59

Nice post.

Not to be rude, but maybe few of us did not hear of hypergamy. At least in the manosphere or gamosphere.

Problem is, always we read “women are built that way, cope with it”. I would like focus more of what to do – game, going own way etc. Because the sole reason we examine hypergamy of generic women behavior, is that they have so much power.

When women had less power, no one cared of hypergamy, and if a woman succumbed to that instinct, she paid the price. See, it is not so difficult for a woman not to slut away.

Many men are not so clueless. What is the nice guy beta strategy?
“I’m better than your previous men.” At least he understands a woman evaluate men. Of course, love always make him believe it will not arrive another nice guy telling same thing and convincing her.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4
meistergedanken May 16, 2012 at 12:02

“many, many, many wimminz will trade up to apparently no man, but a virtual man, the state”

Big Brother is the ultimate alpha. Possessing [or having access to] vast resources, and aloof AS HELL. Think of the tingles, man!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 77 Thumb down 4
Clem Snide May 16, 2012 at 12:09

Backing out of a rigged game makes perfect sense until you remember that the slits hold hostage the reproductive ability of the human race.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 7
Justinian May 16, 2012 at 12:18

Backing out of a rigged game makes perfect sense until you remember that the slits hold hostage the reproductive ability of the human race.

Yes,

Ultimately, the honey badger who takes what he wants and doesn’t give a shit will win in the end.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 5
Clem Snide May 16, 2012 at 12:35

“Ultimately, the honey badger who takes what he wants and doesn’t give a shit will win in the end.”

Too true, the historic norm in human history is polygamous “big-man” societies.

Why do we enjoy things that are bad for us?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price May 16, 2012 at 13:01

the historic norm in human history is polygamous “big-man” societies.

-Clem Snide

Big man societies weren’t all that bad for ordinary guys. Part of being a big man included being generous with gifts, so chiefs would go broke all the time and had to go begging for help from ordinary guys. They couldn’t just declare you a “deadbeat” then seize your assets and children without offering something in return. Only enemy tribes did that kind of thing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 60 Thumb down 2
WdF May 16, 2012 at 13:02

I think, you have a fundamental error in your thinking:
I agree that basically all women have the tendency towards hypergamy. Many religions however prohibit that behavior, and some women follow the requirements of their faith. There are female martyrs in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, (and most probably other religions as well,) so why not expect some women to be faithful sexually too?
A much more tangible incentive is human law. Many cultures have severe punishment in store for those who abandon the live long covenant of marriage. Threaten women with a stoning in stead of alimony, and you will see how faithful they can be. Most probably some women, not too few, would still sleep with another man, and men would sleep with those women, expecting not to get caught. But they wouldn’t run away any more, and take the house and the kids with them. Not as frequently as they do in the West.
Well, stonings are disputable; I think that quite some readers of the spearhead would die too, if all men, who have slept with married women, would be stoned. (Preventing the bigger-better men from taking away another men’s wife is often part of the package to preserve marriage.) Other suggestions for changing the law in a less bloody way can be found on the spearhead.
Expecting your partner to exhibit the exceptional devotion of martyrs, without any incentives from society, religion or the law is a bit far fetched, you are right there. There are reasons why such harsh laws exist in so many cultures.
You are also right in the fact that men bring more to the table than women do, and are often granted a legal advantage in marriage to encourage them to marry anyways. That is lacking in our laws as well.

But don’t tell me, women could not control their behavior if they need to.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 21
DCM May 16, 2012 at 13:08

Exactly right. That’s why divorce must be made difficult for females. And yes, gynoporn (romance) is about power not love and affection.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 2
Ron May 16, 2012 at 13:25

Why do so many people here encourage men to effectively castrate themselves on the one hand and curse people who practice circumcision on the other?

I appreciate a men rights movement. But there is such a nihilistic taint to many of these sites. If a man does not have children then he is sterile. Many of the divorced men on this site were most devastated by their children taken away from them. Is it not clear that this is terrible precisely because having and raising children is integral to our identity on the most fundamental level? And what is the solution propsed? Why to make sure you will NEVER be able to have children.

How in the world does that compute? Isnt it bad enough that we are being hounded to death and all we love and live for that gives us meaning torn from us? And now we have “advice” to sterilize ourselves?

There is a deep sickness in America. An illness of the soul, a hateful poison. Im beginning to think its been there all along and only now we see it spreading openly.

Brothers, dont listen to this articles advice. You have a right to a wife, and by wife I mean a real wife who will perform all those duties she was put here for, to be a helpmate, a loyal SERVANT, a mother, a companion, a foil, an advisor, and yes even a challenge. You have a right to your children, a right to your property, a right to your conscience, and most of all a right to be a man. And what is a man? Hes a king, a master, a ruler, a fighter, a killer, a protector, a comforter, a teacher, an old lion who sits over his mates and his cubs.

Do you know what the real problem is? It isnt women, its us. We dont give a damn about each other. We are brothers, all sons pf Adam and Noah. All these disasters, especially feminism are really a result of the sons Man encouraging theft and caring nothing for the pain of there brothers. Sites like this are a small step on the right direction, but the solution is not found in advising one another to destroy are sexuality. It is to fight to re-establish those bonds of community and brotherhood known as civilization.

What is a white knight? He is a male that wishes for an excuse to destroy another man so he can fill an emptiness in his soul. I believe that emptiness is ironically his lack of love for his brother. People talk about the sisterhood, and the feminists complain endlessly of the patriarchy, that fictional brotherhood of men. Do you realize that in reality that this is precisely what we need most? We should be focusing solely on the benefit of our brothers, our fellow men. We should be fighting to protect each mans rights to his family to his roght to respect from women.

Instead we tear each other to pieces.

Brothers, the fight is not hopeless, and whether you choose to stay or expat it is not a fight you can truly run from. Do you think that if what is left of the republic falls it will be easy to bring it back? The dark ages were dark because once the wicked civilization of Rome collapsed under its own corruption it took hundreds of years for our fathers to claw their way back. But it will take men to do it, and where will those men come from if you sterilize yourselves?

I do not advocate marriage with the American woman. There may be exceptions, but she is mostly lost. But that is because her society, the emotional sea she lives in and which forms her views of roght and wrong is lost. Your grandmothers had the same wiring, but they did not act like these women because the social world they lived in encouraged duty, obligation, and honor.

So now you know the problem, women who belong to a society that does not value their obligations to men. The solution is simple, find societies that do value men. There are certainly such groups in even America. Find them, create them if you have to. Dont excuse yourselves from this battle because you see your surrounding culture woshes to enslave you. For shame, are you the first men met with the challenge of a hostile environment? It will not be easy, but was anything of value easy? There are going to be terrible risks, but is anything worth more?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 79 Thumb down 80
Ms. Miss May 16, 2012 at 13:25

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 57
Crypticaros May 16, 2012 at 13:30

Fuck with all that “lets be decoding the behaviours of women and all that lets be diciphering hypergammy bull shite.”

Why not lets identify, isolate and deal with dog-gals MALE enablers, white knights and wind up manginas [wums] for a change ? Whatever their station, rank or number !

Why not we be allowed medieval time over the heads, bones and organs of these pussy begging fukkers ? Because make no mistake, all roads lead this way eventually for any man that knows whats what.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Peter South May 16, 2012 at 13:45

Too difficult to go traveling all over the world looking for a wife and kids to support. The man is the prize not the woman and children.

Besides, plenty of men in other places end up exactly the same. There’s child support in Latin America, Eastern Europe and every other place. Not too difficult for her to get hooked up with your paycheck and send you packing.

There’s nowhere left to run except maybe Philippines but the girls are mostly ugly and starting to become radioactive. I don’t recommend living there.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 7
Peter South May 16, 2012 at 13:51

“Backing out of a rigged game makes perfect sense until you remember that the slits hold hostage the reproductive ability of the human race.”

The reason we’re having all these problems is because we’ve created too many human beings using funny money.

I don’t say this as a left wing “save the earth” nut. I say this as someone who cares about quality of life. We are outstripping our natural resources.

The unprecedented monetary bubble of the last 70 years that enabled the welfare state that allowed all these halfwits to breed unchecked will need to be unwound taking a lot of those superfluous and mostly genetically inferior people with it.

Then we can worry about rebuilding with good genetic stock but we need to have the flood first.

I would lean more in the opposite direction, take a combat shooting course and stick around.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 22
Ms. Miss May 16, 2012 at 13:53

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 65
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 13:53

Great article.

Hypergamy was always practiced in the pre-marriage market . What is different now is hypergamy continues after the marriage contract. This is very different from a fault divorce society, where a man would have to do something very bad in order for his wife to be allowed to divorce him. Even then, if it was an old-fashioned fault divorce society, he would keep the children.

What makes matters so much worse, is once she finds a better deal, she not only gets to take the children, but also more than half of the man’s assets. This is really sickening when you think about it. So really the marriage contract does nothing but enable her on the property scam. She would get the kids anyway without the marriage contract.

In the traditional Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Marriage, once married, she had to stay married, unless there were serious allegations of adultery. The children were still the property of the man. This is the way it should be.

The guy who did the best job about writing about hypergamy in America and what it does to the male psyche was Ernest Hemingway. Read his short story “The short and happy life of Francis Macomber.” It seems there has been some element of hypergamy in American Society for many decades. And how did Ernest end up?: with a self-inflicted shotgun blast to the head.

At that time there were not open forums discussing these issues; so men felt very isolated; they felt like they had a problem if they did not want to compete for rotten bitches. Now we know, by virtue of being born in the United States, we are dealt a bad hand in the game of women and family. All it takes is a few clicks of the internet to see how much more beautiful women are in other parts of the world.

Though no society is perfect, I think an American Man is going to have a better chance with women in another part of the world, as long as he stays there.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 6
N/A May 16, 2012 at 13:54

Ron here ^^^^ is speaking the truth

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 13:56

The guy who did the best job about writing about hypergamy in America and what it does to the male psyche was Ernest Hemingway. Read his short story “The short and happy life of Francis Macomber.”

Here is the short story. It will really make you sick because of the reality.
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/macomber.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 3
Brigadon May 16, 2012 at 14:27

Down with Universal Suffrage!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 6
Dick Cheney May 16, 2012 at 14:47

Good thing I missed that hunting trip.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 15:03

@Ron

A speech filled with emotion, hope, and exuberance. Filled with words like “Republic,” “fight,” “grandmothers,” and anything else that can get the juices flowing with false hope. Sounds like something Obama’s speechwriter would craft.

But you did not offer one practical tactic. Not one. Anyone can make a speech like that.

Not only that; you laid the blame on us men! And that is a cardinal sin. I myself did not ask to be born a man into the “shithole for men” they call “America.”

“Do you think that if what is left of the republic falls it will be easy to bring it back? ”

This quote really gives me the willies. The best thing that could happen at this point would be for the Republic to collapse and go into such a state of anarchy that the current powerbase runs for the hills. Such a scenario would give the rest of the world a pause: “Duh, maybe we should not copy everything America does, Duh…”

Withholding sperm and marriage is a temporary measure. One that saves the poor man from probable slavery. Many things can happen if all men go on a children and marriage strike: 1) Things will not change in America but the man saves himself; 2) A younger American female generation will see older bitches going unmarried and childless, and they will wise up. Then the man will marry the a girl of the younger generation and have his children with them. 3) The man expats and has a family somewhere else. 4) The man expats and does not have a family; 5) The man has sperm forcibly extracted from him to save the tax base of the country.

None of the solutions are good because there are no good solutions once you understand the magnitude of evil and the depth of occupation and deception in this satanic plot.

That’s right. No good solutions, only “least worst” solutions to the this whole sick scene. This is not a happy place to be. I suggest you stop the pleas to emotion and concentrate on either educating younger brothers about the true evils they face by virtue of their gender and birth country; or try to offer real practical solutions. But leave the false hope and rhetoric with the lawyers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 7
tiredofitall May 16, 2012 at 15:06

@ Ron

Don’t know why but your language reminds me of a female writing under a male pseudonym. Made me think of this: http://fgmnir.ytmnd.com/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 15:14

@Joe Zamboni
“Don’t think that just because you the man have done pretty well along these lines, that you are not subject to the instant departure of a woman who has been with you for a long time.”

Words to live by. In Western Society, you are always just a hair from unilateral ruin.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 15:21

@tiredofitall
“Don’t know why but your language reminds me of a female writing under a male pseudonym. Made me think of this: http://fgmnir.ytmnd.com/

LOL. I didn’t catch it. I think you are right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
keyster May 16, 2012 at 15:24

If men in great number are no longer willing to associate themselves with women in commited realtionships, the government is more than willing to ablige as the surrogate husband from afar.

It’s happening already…
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg

ObamaCare is predominantly “free” WOMEN’S health care. Free contraception, free abortion, free pap smears, free mamograms, free pelvic exams – – no provisions specifically for men’s health whatsoever.

Next is government daycare centers which arguably exist already in the form of our public school systems.

The mortgage melt down was over 40% single moms signing off on mortgage agreements “they really didn’t fully understand”. The government was pushing Countrywide and other FHA lenders to loan to single moms and minorities hard everyday. Public housing is predominantly single moms.

As our government grows deeper into insolvency and eventually collapses, women will spontaneously become more pleasant to men. Only the lingering remnants of white-knight chivalry will be their to help them. I for one, will have little sympathy for their struggle to survive the new era of hardship.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 5
Ronin May 16, 2012 at 15:43

There is one thing a woman MUST have for a man to subdue her hypergamic impulses……R-E-S-P-E-C-T. What most men, especially manginas and white knights fail to comprehend is that women do not fall in love, women fall in respect. Love is what a woman have for herself and power. Whatever’s leftover she may (or not) reserve for her spawn.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 3
Eric Wolf May 16, 2012 at 15:48

@walking in hell: Excellent link!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Ronin May 16, 2012 at 16:27

Props to walking in hell for reminding me of another major subduer of hypergamy…..DOMINANCE. First she respect you and then you dominate her. That’s why most men fail shit tests and the biggest shit test of them all is feminism. Women do not shit test men they respect. Can anyone picture a mangina or a white knight with either of these traits? No, because they’re backward ass enablers assuming that if they kiss ass and play Capn Save a Ho they’ll be rewarded with said ass.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 8
AfOR May 16, 2012 at 16:29

respect for men?

never happen.

be godlike, take a young woman about to die, offer her life and food and board and comfort in exchange for her promise to cook, clean and fuck for ten years

ten days later she will be looking for a way out, after all her brush with death is now ancient history.

the chinese had it sussed, we say when you save a life they owe you, they said if you save a life you will bear the burden of it

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 3
Ronin May 16, 2012 at 16:40

@AFOR

Well said kind Sir, but my comment is a buyers beware warning.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
walking in hell May 16, 2012 at 16:58

@Eric Wolf

I assume you mean the Hemingway link. In my opinion, American women have always been shitheads and this Hemingway short story really illustrates it well. Certainly American Women have never been very good looking. What I think has really changed in modern times is that the hypergamy is so institutionalized and accepted.

Way back in Hemingway’s time it was more hidden. I for one know that my grandmother drove my grandfather to drink and to an early grave. She also held out on him for years. But as far as I know she never cheated and they never divorced.

Notice in the Hemingway story that the underlying theme is that the man, Francis, is supposed to be “man enough,” to keep his woman in line. This is the old American adage that there is something wrong with a man whose woman cheats, torments, or leaves him.

In reality the problem is the women; they are rotten. It is not the job of the man to manage the behavior of a woman. It is the woman’s job to manage her own behavior. It is the job of the greater society to manage the behavior of women. The society should be firmly behind the man always having the final authority as to how his wife should be treated or punished if she chooses to not manager her behavior properly.

What we see in America is 100% backwards; and the fruits are rotten.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 6
Raj May 16, 2012 at 18:06

Actually for every woman cheating on her husband/bf theres another man enjoying her. He knows she is cheating but is OK with screwing both her and another brother. I know many such guys.

Hypergamy exists because a majority of men are OK with it. Some participate in it and others wrote and enforce the laws that enable it. Some complain because they are not getting a piece of the action, just like the OWS protesters complaining about corporate greed but only in times of high unemployment. Protests end when they get jobs.

A typical hypergamous western woman wouldn’t dream of hooking up with another man if put in shoes of her sisters in some other countries. What’s different? The men.

Hypergamy will stop when men can say no to it when it possibly benefits them. How many guys can say no to a hot milf looking for a quick lay? Not many. That’s the real problem.

In present times it’s an extremely bad idea to expect loyalty or commitment. Better to make quick trades rather than long term investments.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 11
freebird May 16, 2012 at 18:24

Hypergamy would be nothing w/o the blue knights ready to kill your ass to defend it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
codebuster May 16, 2012 at 18:26

When less is more

Even more insidious than hypergamy in the sense of women choosing better is hypogamy in the sense of women choosing less. Let’s face it… women do often seem to go out of their way to choose bottom-feeders. But in the end, both hypergamy and hypogamy are ultimately related to the same one thing… man as utility device. When a woman chooses idiot with neither looks nor brains, she is ultimately only choosing him because he is more predictable, less likely to stray and less likely to threaten her delusions of moral of superiority.

Whether it’s in marriage or in life as a welfare princess, it is always a win-win for women. No matter whether it’s the gubmint, a dominant alpha, a bad-boy degenerate or a supplicating idiot, she will always, always be provided for – except perhaps for the bad-boy degenerate, who is at least more likely to meet her more primal proclivities. But hey, why sweat it when you have the gubmint to provide for you?

It’s a paradox, isn’t it. We can understand hypergamy easily enough… but hypogamy? Why choose an idiot from the bottom of the gene-pool? Isn’t it easier just to get a job? Especially when you have affirmative action freebies to indulge in on the pussy-pass gravy-train.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 3
Thomas Tell-Truth May 16, 2012 at 18:45

Its funny how socialism is just female hypergamy on a vast scale. Women can sleep with the alpha douchebags, and the rest of us beta chumps are forced to pay for the results. The entire male populace is reduced to the status of cuckolds.

Wanna see the end result? Look at black neighbourhoods since the so-called Great Society destroyed the black family.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 2
Ted May 16, 2012 at 19:01

@Clem Snide May 16, 2012 at 12:09

“Backing out of a rigged game makes perfect sense until you remember that the slits hold hostage the reproductive ability of the human race.”

Roll on the AUTO-WOMB!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4
Ted May 16, 2012 at 19:07

tiredofitall, @ Ron:

“Don’t know why but your language reminds me of a female writing under a male pseudonym”

Doesn’t seem that way to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Attila May 16, 2012 at 19:11

Why bother trying to decode? Is it worth the time and effort?

There’s so much else to do/enjoy — just came back from a foreign festival —interestingly, the average age of the audience was about 60 or higher. Not a single android/gynbot in sight – except for and older harpy whose phone kept going off from time to time. The film – by director Yilmaz Güney (Turkey) had some violent scenes of a man slapping the mean wife — nobody gasped….LOL.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Anon May 16, 2012 at 19:16

There were two occasions in my 20′s when I was propositioned by a married woman whose husband I also knew. It blows my mind that in both cases, I was a good physical match for the husband (skin, hair eye color – in case she got pregnant), except I was two or three inches taller, a lot more muscular, had a better job, and I had a meaner, more competitive attitude.

Believe it, guys; hypergamy is what defines a woman’s attitude toward relationships.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1
Boxer May 16, 2012 at 19:35

Cheers to Joe for a straight-up article. Good stuff on the spearhead in the past few days.

Hypergamy exists because a majority of men are OK with it.

The last time I had a steady girlfriend (going on three years ago) she cheated on me. I wasn’t mad at the other dude she was fucking. He wasn’t in a relationship with me, after all.

Women cheat. It’s what they do. It’s not something we should bitch about. I see it as beyond any notion of good and evil. It’s just the way they’re wired.

Women also lie. If your woman is cheating, it’s a fair bet that she’s not being all forthcoming with the other dudes in her life. She’s not with that other guy to talk about how she has a relationship with you. She’s there to fuck him. 9 times out of 10, she’s not telling these other dudes that she’s committed. They think she’s just another single and available chick ripe for the picking.

All that said, I don’t fuck married women and suggest the same policy to every brother I know. Life is complicated enough without some pissed off husband screaming at you in a parking lot someplace. There are still enough single women who are hot to make fucking some married bitch completely optional. Don’t do it.

Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 10
Geography Bee Finalist himself May 16, 2012 at 19:45

Women also lie.

Women don’t know how to tell the truth.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Neil May 16, 2012 at 19:54

OT:

Cannes Film Festival jury denies ‘sexism’ claim
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18094997

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Peter South May 16, 2012 at 20:05

“There are still enough single women who are hot to make fucking some married bitch completely optional. Don’t do it.”

Wow what planet do you live on?

I do not personally know of any woman who is not either married or has at least a boyfriend or a couple f-buddies already.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
jaego May 16, 2012 at 20:41

A thug is a primitive alpha – so the principle is still correct. Some women just want the primitive, at least now and then. Same thing with the Rebel archetype – an alpha too, albeit a disenfranchised one. He might or might not be primitive. Some women find this kind of man irresistible. She dream of taming him.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray May 16, 2012 at 21:41

“Romance novels are female porn.”
Romance novels are utterly key to understanding women. Here’s two or three little points that are not necessarily obvious:

* romantic heroes are always fit *as a result of living an active life*. They are never gym rats.
* romantic heroes may have a boss, or work for someone, but they are never supervised on a day-to-day basis by an immediate superior
* romantic heroes always have a social network of women who it is in the interests of the heroine to connect with. If she is a model, his system will be a fashion photographer

Most of all:
* Romantic heroes always have women in their pasts who the heroine can supplant. He will be a widower, a divorcee, have a sister or mother who is using him, a first love who just didn’t deserve him, etc. He is emotionally available, but hard to get. Women are powerfully motivated by stealing men off other women.

The cubicle-dwelling nerd with a boss and no women in his life is the absolute antithesis of the romantic hero on almost every level, even if he’s making good money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 1
Joe Zamboni May 16, 2012 at 22:20

So beyond going to another country, and hopefully doing better than you could do in a western industrialized economy, what are you guys doing to deal with hypergamy? Personally I believe that hypergamy still exists even in these other countries, although the legal and cultural opportunities for women to express it may be more limited. What about refusing to enter into any monogamous commitments with women? Prenuptials? Cohabitation agreements?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Eric May 16, 2012 at 22:21

‘…women are always after the bigger, better, deal.’

I hear this in the MRM constantly, but don’t see any proof of it. Women, in our culture at least, are taught by feminism to hate men and see us all as inferiors. A relationship with a man, to them, is all geared around this Superiority Complex. There can be no such thing as a ‘bigger, better deal’; since to the female mind, there is no such thing as ‘bigger, better man.’

Women have to break good men to prove to themselves their own ‘superiority’. They pursue losers and thugs for the same reason. It’s nothing but a power play and about ego reinforcement. The only ‘bigger better deal’ is her own ego.

As for the ‘Prince Charming’ romantic heroes, they are no more characteristic of the men women pursue for relationships than the ‘selfless, devoted heroines’, in the same movies, accurately depict American women. Look at any tabloid and see that it’s males like Justin Bieber—or other male celebreties who look like street pimps–that’s the type women really want. Why then do they like romance novels? For the same reason men like science fiction—escapism. Both genres depict worlds that don’t exist.

‘…the speed with which women change &c…’

This is because of the same narcissicism and egomania feminism installs in women. Women are first and foremost taught to be self-serving and they have absolutely no feelings for men and especially not empathy. There’s no actual ‘change’ involved here. They simply adapt to whatever is a means to their own ends. This is also why feminised women are such pathological liars. Truth is only whatever serves their interests; if anyone else is harmed by their lies, they don’t count.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 19
Boxer May 16, 2012 at 22:34

When women had less power, no one cared of hypergamy, and if a woman succumbed to that instinct, she paid the price. See, it is not so difficult for a woman not to slut away.

Women never had less power than they do now. In the days of chivalry (the days that the conservatives long to bring back, lol) most men were chumped into marrying these tramps, and then forced to support them until death.

Women fucked around back in those days, every bit as much as they do now, and on average more. There were no DNA tests back then. If a man wanted to divorce his cheating, nagging hag of a bitch wife, he had to bring witnesses to the courts, otherwise he’d be told to get back to work, while princess bangs the mailman and the dude who delivers cheese and eggs on Fridays.

Even in the case of the man who did manage to divorce, his life went to hell in other ways. As an unmarried, unenslaved man who didn’t have a female master, he got thrown out of fraternal organizations, was suspected of some terrible misdeed, and usually lost his job and/or business. Loans from the bank would no longer be available to him, as he was deemed unreliable.

Some men (very few, but some) managed to slip out of town and make a new life for themselves in some distant clime. The American frontier and the British colonies hosted these guys for a time. Most of our grandfathers, and theirs before them, were absolutely doomed.

Never doubt that all the men, all throughout history, would trade places with you. You get to choose your own destiny, free of some naggy bitch telling you what to do. Enjoy your lives, brothers. These are the best of times.

Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 17
Brigadon May 16, 2012 at 23:00

It still makes the muslim way of dealing with their women seem appealing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 7
codebuster May 17, 2012 at 00:01

I do not personally know of any woman who is not either married or has at least a boyfriend or a couple f-buddies already.

Very true. Women do not have autonomy, responsibility or self-agency. They transition across relationships. You’ve got to catch them on the rebound and then you’ve got to baby them (if you marry). They don’t have what it takes to act on their own initiative. They never grow up. In a very real sense, every woman is a child-adult.

This is why the brain-maps of men and women are so different. Men have a greater proportion of neurons (grey matter), while women have a greater proportion of glia (white matter). Because women never have to take responsibility for anything, they never have to make the same sorts of decisions as men do, and so they not required to force the development of neural grey matter in the way that men do. The politically correct interpretation of the differences in men’s and women’s brain maps is that glia also have an important function… and they do… (principally, glia provide a support role for neurons). But in terms of raw intelligence, that’s where things get rather more interesting, and we should not expect any honest appraisal in these pc times. I do have research references if anyone is interested (and if it’s not too time-consuming for me to hunt them down… alternatively, there is google).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5
walking in hell May 17, 2012 at 00:09

In hypergamy, woman chooses to trade up a man.
In hypogamy, woman chooses to trade down a man.
In divorce, woman chooses to leave a man and take his children.
In cheating, woman chooses to cheat on a man.
In career, woman chooses how and where to work.

The key is choice.

The more choices women have been given, the more they have destroyed their families, their men, their children, and their societies. Women with choices have turned their worlds into cesspools–abortion, teenage (pre-teen sex), adultery, divorce, single motherhood, female sex tourism, hypergamy, hypogamy, serial marriage, materialism.

Look at what women have done to children: condemned many of them to bastardhood by alienating them from their fathers.

And guess what? Women are still miserable; probably more miserable then when they had fewer choices. And their choices have made everyone else miserable.

Their choices have made men so miserable, that the men caught in these societies are on this website figuring out how to escape. Men in these societies are so afraid, and rightly so, that they go celibate for years at a time and contemplate vasectomies. An entire generation of women will be cheated out of lifelong marriage and motherhood because women in these societies have been given “choices.”

Just imagine a world where women had no choice. Or imagine a world where a woman’s choice is delegated to the main male figure in her life: her father or husband or brother. Does such a fantasy bring peace and stability to your mind?

Man: “Hi, want to come back to my place?:
Woman: “I must ask my father (or husband or brother).

Whoever said women were supposed to have choices? Most of the great Wisdom books describe women always in subordination to some male figure. The choice was always “his,” not “hers,” at least for major issues.

The key to a better society is removing all of a woman’s choices and transferring her choices to a man. Her choices should never be her own and should be transferred from one man to another.

That being said, do you think it is possible to remove a woman’s ability to “choose” in America or Western Society, thereby cleaning up these societies? Of course not. These “women’s choice” societies are bound to become more miserable to all who live in them as they die a slow and miserable death.

Emigrate, Expat, Emigrate, Expat.

Muslim countries are sounding better and better.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 6
walking in hell May 17, 2012 at 00:29

@Ronin
There is one thing a woman MUST have for a man to subdue her hypergamic impulses……R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Once again you are placing the burden onto the man to subdue a woman. This is backwards. The woman should be subdued by herself and society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
walking in hell May 17, 2012 at 01:40

@Wdf
“Well, stonings are disputable; I think that quite some readers of the spearhead would die too, if all men, who have slept with married women, would be stoned. (Preventing the bigger-better men from taking away another men’s wife is often part of the package to preserve marriage.)”

Sound like a good idea. Such rules would solve the problems in a matter of weeks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Andie May 17, 2012 at 04:18

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 30
Justinian May 17, 2012 at 04:54

Women who are sixty and seventy have the same opportunity to fuck over men as younger women, but they don’t take it. Why not?

If hypergamy is hardwired, why not trade up? And if hypergamy is hardwired, why would foreign women be immune to it?

A woman age 60 has a SMV of 0.00.

thats why

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
anonymous May 17, 2012 at 05:03

Thought this might be useful to the hypergamy argument:

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/hypergamy-doesnt-care/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 06:11

@Andie

No baby boomers screwed over their husbands? C’mon

Many of them now can’t afford a divorce. The house is worth less than they paid, they’re past the age of CS and they won’t get a better deal. Trying to collect alimony from a man who’s on his way down the economic ladder isn’t too promising either.

Are there a lot of rich guys that age looking for a sixty or seventy year old woman? How about younger rich guys?

There’s your answer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Boxer May 17, 2012 at 06:40

Women who are sixty and seventy have the same opportunity to fuck over men as younger women, but they don’t take it. Why not?

Women don’t generally divorce just for the cash and prizes. They divorce for that reason, but also to get remarried.

The dried out old bags in your extended family have zero power or pull in the sexual marketplace, and they know it. THAT is why they haven’t chosen to fuck their men over, and it’s the only reason.

Most of us aren’t in the market to marry 60-70 year old, dried out prunes. Hell, I know 60-70 year old men at the gym who look great and bang 20-30 year old women from the same pool I and my friends get ours.

This may sound crass, but it is an effective answer to your NAWALT alluding question. Women do things because they can. When they can’t, they don’t.

Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 8
Poester99 May 17, 2012 at 06:45

Ms. Miss May 16, 2012 at 13:25

Does the author endorse relationships with women at all?

Yes, otherwise why bother with with the “snip” – vasectomy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd May 17, 2012 at 06:51

Eric belongs to a Anti-gaming cult btw … you can see his handywork over at Dalrocks …

They believe theres no such thing as hypergamy & women arent attracted to assholes & thugs …

Oh yea & game doesnt work, & theres no such thing as attraction … cant make this shit up …

In short theyre typical of whackjobs belonging to cults … in this case the anti-game cult

Theyre more then happy to co-opt MRA, as like all white knights, they love playing the white knight, whether its for men or for women

But as soon as you start mentioning REAL Life Workable solutions watch their fanatical cult like fanaticism against men being successful with women

& even more importantly standing up to women, come into play, people like Eric literally start frothing at the mouth, & start spewing inane crap like hypergamy doesnt exist …

As Eric a member of the anti-gamer cult states quite clearly earlier up theres no proof of hypergamy…. & tries to blame feminism for hypergamy …

Idiotic members of the anti-gaming cult, are in fact white knights & manginas, who cant stand the fact men can stand up to women & actually take control of their relationships with women

Anti-gamers are essentially masochists & illiterates, who dont want men to be successful in anything, which is why they parrot the feminist party line & start frothing at the mouth at anyone who tries to propose REAL solutions

Game, the MRA movement & pua’s are real workable solutions, anti-gamers like Eric are just another type of mangina, vagina worshippers who dont give a crap about men

The only difference between a regular vagina worshipper & man hater & an anti-gamer, is that they practise stealth hate

They essentially use the terms & language of the MRA movement, to hide their hatred for men

Alot like the main stream drones & conservatives on this blog …

Anyway Eric is a well known member of the anti-gamer cult, which is why he’s trying to place the blame for hypergamy on feminism …

We ALL know women have been hypergamous from the berth of time, hypergamy is a biological fact …

Just dont expect anti-gamer idiots like Eric to tell you the truth about anything … manginas & anti-gamers arent interested in the truth, especially when it comes to women …

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13
Boxer May 17, 2012 at 06:52

Dear Peter South:

Wow what planet do you live on? I do not personally know of any woman who is not either married or has at least a boyfriend or a couple f-buddies already.

Same one as you. When I hear people make such comments I usually assume them to be in middle age. Hit Heartiste and learn how to flirt, then start dating down in the 20-28 year old range. None of these women are married. (I doubt anyone on the spearhead will spend much time wondering why lol)

If they’re over 25 they make their own money and will have no problem paying their own way when you go out. Just don’t think any of these women are relationship material, always wear a condom, and you’ll be good.

Trying to collect alimony from a man who’s on his way down the economic ladder isn’t too promising either.

Again, I suspect we’re in very different places and generations. A quick visit to the family court in my area turns up plenty of older dudes who are in and out of the jailhouse for failure to pay outrageous maintenance to their ex-hoes. It’s positively shameful. I recommend a bit of field research to all my friends who are dopey enough to think they’ve found the one “good woman” in this mess. An hour or two on the bench, watching the proceedings of the family court system, will generally cure even the most hardened romantic.

Regards, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 10
Poester99 May 17, 2012 at 06:57

Ms. Miss May 16, 2012 at 13:53

Also, it’s interesting that the author describes the average women as being so calculating, and men as being invested in love, faithful, etc. We are manipulative, we “hunt” and “exploit” the innocent male (with our breasts and lipstick)? Do you feel hunted? If we are as clever, wily and conniving as you say, then I am truly impressed with my gender. Perhaps it might be more beneficial for the average women to engage in hypogamy instead?

So you knee-jerk for Team Woman? The point is that women are not all purity and light and they have base instincts as well, and those base instincts are NOT what is promulgated in popular culture as the “truth”. Men are fed bullshit, so they make bad choices and take foolish risks. This very good article clears some of that up.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Rmaxd May 17, 2012 at 06:59

Btw expect to see more clueless posts on women, by the anti-gaming cult members, like Eric & Andi …

They pulled the same crap over at Dalrocks, posting months & months of inane posts on women & their anti-game cult fanaticism …

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13
Poester99 May 17, 2012 at 07:02

Brigadon May 16, 2012 at 23:00

It still makes the muslim way of dealing with their women seem appealing.

doesn’t even matter if it’s good or not, they’re having more kids than anyone else, so soon it’ll be their way or nothing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 07:15

Boxer – I am 37.

And women that age may not be married but they all have “boyfriends”

Actually there are some 25-27 year olds at the office that appear not to have boyfriends but they are total skanks. I wouldn’t screw them with your dick.

But more often than not, you notice some strange kind of resistance and then you find out there’s a guy lurking somewhere and it’s not happening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Journey May 17, 2012 at 07:48

So it all boils down to the dos and the dont’s.
The Dont’s:
1. Do not ever get married, it opens you up immediately to the full utterly corrupt and oppressive power of the state any time she decides to drop it on you. It’s simply and freely giving another human being immense and incredibly harmful power over you.
2. Don’t have kids as even if you’re not married you can still be enslaved for 18-25 years. Also if you’re not married it simply makes it even easier for her to cut you out of their lives completely while you must still fully pay of course.
3. Don’t co-habit for any long period of time because if she decides to dump you she’ll still walk away with half of everything you have in many western countries.
The Does:
1. Learn or at least become aware of the reasoning and realities about women that Game is attuned to. In other words hypergamy and that women tingle for selfish jerks who don’t really give a shit about them. So if you want to get laid be a jerk and pump and dump.
2. Take birth control totally seriously. Don’t even listen to anything she says about whether she’s on the pill or not. It’s not relevant. Simply always wear a condom every damn time. In other words you take care of protecting yourself. And pray for the male pill.
3. Fully and ruthlessly take on board that yes All Women Are Like That. Not a single one is when you first meet them of course, they’re all nice, decent lovable people. Until they decide to change and suddenly they’re a completely different person because it now suits them to be.

And if you live in Europe look forward to the wonders of feminist equality and respect for everyone being replaced by Islam. In a couple of decades muslims will be the majority of people in their 20s over there and I don’t think they’ll want feminist crap still ruling them. Sharia courts should be available to everyone. In 40 years they’ll be ruling western Europe by the simple reality of being three quarters of younger (under 45) people. And you all know what white European women will do when they realise their party is over…. they’ll turn and look at white men and say “Do something!”. That’s when they’ll come to understand how much they’re hated.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 3
keyster May 17, 2012 at 08:26

Caucasiods (and Negroids) are not breeding.
Hispanics are breeding.

Why?
Because Feminism has turned men and women against each other. Hispanic immigrant women were not indocrinated by feminist propaganda. It didn’t translate well in spanish. Feminists didn’t target Hispanic women. Mostly Catholic and patriarchal, Hispanic women still believe in marriage and La Familia.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0517/More-than-half-of-US-babies-now-minorities-US-Census-reports

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 08:29

Hispanic women still believe in marriage and La Familia.

On my freakin dime they do.

It’s because they’re illegal immigrants, the men have no fear. Black men end up in jail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Joe Zamboni May 17, 2012 at 08:45

So here’s the short overview: Feminism in America has given women many more choices than they ever had in the history of this country. Meanwhile, women are still NOT held to be accountable or responsible for their actions (think pussy pass for example). This increased choice and power coupled with a lack of accountability and responsibility is a recipe for disaster. So aware modern American men must side-step any bureaucratic or legalistic arrangement with women (marriage, cohabitation, business partnerships, hiring women, etc.) if they are going to avoid getting shafted big time by women’s choices. And thanks Journey for your recommendations, all of which I endorse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
keyster May 17, 2012 at 09:18

This increased choice and power coupled with a lack of accountability and responsibility is a recipe for disaster.

Right.
With the advent of the pill and free abortion on demand, they’ve relinquished the sacrosanct ideal of motherhood, to better compete directly with men. And although they still wield sexual power over man, they’ve mostly failed at becoming him. This is why they’re less happy and more frustrated than ever before in recent history.

If preganancy and motherhood were the ultimate barriers to equality, there should be many more women doing fantastic things then there were 20 or 30 years ago. But there isn’t. There’s just a plethora of surly beta worker drones with vaginas in government and administration jobs – dropping their kids off at daycare every morning and picking them up every evening.

Are there women more capable beyond simply “making babies”?
Yes there are, and they should be given the opportunity to succeed.
But making babies is their primary biological purpose.
It’s feminists who reject this reality.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 4
FFP May 17, 2012 at 09:58

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
FFP May 17, 2012 at 10:02

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
Anonymous age 70 May 17, 2012 at 11:16

>>Peter South May 17, 2012 at 08:29

Hispanic women still believe in marriage and La Familia.

On my freakin dime they do.

It’s because they’re illegal immigrants, the men have no fear. Black men end up in jail.

###

Here where I Live in rural Mexico, the women still believe in family. Number of kids is down from 7 or 8 to around 2. But, family means more than husband and kids here. It means grandma; grandpa; aunts; uncles; sisters; and brothers.

It also means their approval. Those family members do not easily give approval to trivial divorce.

If a husband is a Nice Guy and works well with family, Cupcake will get no support and sympathy for dumping him.

Let me add that Nice Guys are hot in Mexico.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 10
Eric May 17, 2012 at 11:28

Lol, Rmaxd, you’re a doofus.

‘They pulled that same anti-Game crap over at Dalrock’s &c…’

Funny how Dalrock’s blog has so many self-indentified ‘tradcon’ female readers who all seem really happy with the ideas of Roissyism promoted over there, isn’t it? Maybe they all they like they idea of being pandered to for sex, hmmm.???

So who’s the real vagina-worshipping cult? Men who advocate avoiding American women (like myself); or males like the PUA dunces who are obsessed with getting sex from them at any price?

It sounds a lot like your ‘hypergamy in women is a biological fact’ thesis, is a bit of psychological projection there, Alphaboy. LOL

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Eric May 17, 2012 at 11:43

Andie;
One of the issues that the Gamecocks can never come to grips with is exactly what you described—why ‘hypergamy’ seems so conspicuously absent in older generations of American females; or why foreign-born, non-feminist cultures seem to lack it as well.

I think the idea appeals to some of the younger MRAs because they were all born when feminised culture was well underway and never experienced evidence to the contrary, so it’s understandable that, based on their experiences, that they would conclude things like this.
(That excludes, of course, jugheads like Rmaxd and Dalrock who have to convince themselves somehow that THEY are the ‘bigger better deals’ whom all women supposedly want LOL).

In reality, modern women are conflicted between their biological demands and the artificial social ones imposed on them by feminism. The reason why they run around being sluts is because their egos are in a state of disequilibrium and the chaos of their lives is an outward manifestation of their inner conlicts. A typical slut is dependent on men at the same time she’s trying to prove to herself that she ‘doesn’t need a man’ and is ‘independent’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Jacko May 17, 2012 at 12:02

“Women will take great care to make it seem as though they support their man’s values, but that is because they want to be part of the man’s winning team. But when the bigger-better-deal comes along, they will instantly change their values so that they can better merge with the new man’s scene. ”

Great observation, Joe.

Chekhov understood women. He wrote a brilliant satirical short story called “The Darling” (1899) in which a woman with no ideas of her own [except how to be feminine and sweet] automatically adopts the outlook of whatever man she’s with – even if it’s the exact opposite of the outlook she used to have when she was with a different man!

Yes, women really are the weaker sex. They have to be led by men and they also have to be socially constrained from acting on their hypergamous instincts. A culture that fails to acknowledge the need for male family headship and strict constraints on womens’ sexuality is headed for social catastrophe.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Andie May 17, 2012 at 12:51

@Eric

Thanks for that response. I’m not one to dismiss biological arguments out of hand – for example I believe women do their best to choose the best genetically fit partner they can, as do men (which is why obesity is usually a turn-off). Men like hour glass figures. Women like broad shoulders. That sort of thing.

Obviously, in my own life, I am not willing or interesting in “trading up” my partner. Maybe that’s because he’s already such a great specimen, it would be hard to find someone better?

I always thought it was because I love him, and I love my children and I couldn’t bear the thought of them not having a father (as I did). We chose each other based on compatibility, and so far, it’s working just fine.

I try to think of anything that would make me want to divorce my husband. Infidelity? Nope. I wouldn’t can my marriage for that. Not a chance. I don’t believe I have the a priori right to control my husband’s sexuality. If he wants a blowjob at 4PM after spending the afternoon in the bar with his friends, I have two choices: deliver, or shut the fuck up when he pays someone else to deliver.

Abuse? I can’t imagine what I would have to do for my husband to hit me. We are not the sort of people to solve our differences with violence. And our disagreements are petty. Nothing that would provoke abuse.

Money? He earns it, he controls it. I have no problem with that. When I go back to work, I doubt that will change. He takes excellent care of our family financially. I look over our stuff once a year, and leave the rest to him. He gives me a budget, and I stick to it. Why would I destroy my family financially? That’s just nuts.

Trading up for someone better? That’s laughable. I would never give up my best friend. When people express admiration that we have been married for 12 years (such a long time!), it makes me laugh. I’m surrounded by people celebrating 40 and 50 year anniversaries.

Those women never traded. And from what I can see, they are all happy. Every divorced woman I know is a bitter bitch. The author of their own misery, in my opinion. And their children’s. And their husband’s.

I don’t like the idea that it’s “genetic”. I think it has far more to do with social structures and laws, and those things can be changed. If it’s genetic, then going overseas won’t help, in the long run.

Gamecocks. I have never heard the term before. What does it mean?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 19
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 13:10

Anonymous age 70

That’s great but the article was about the US.

The point of the article was not how great Mexican women are but more that they’re breeding like cockroaches because their men cannot be held accountable and we end up paying for it anyway through higher taxes and costs.

I think enough black and white men have seen the writing on the wall and are being WAY more careful about where they blow their beans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Boxer May 17, 2012 at 13:53

Dear Peter South:

Boxer – I am 37. And women that age may not be married but they all have “boyfriends”

Yup. It starts happening about 28-30 in my area. Whereas the female herd had previously taken great pride in how many uncommitted cocks they could individually ride, suddenly the status marker becomes husband/boyfriend. Women who hit that age turn on a dime.

Over on the Dalrock blog, this was dissected in great detail a few months ago. Dalrock calls it “signalling”. Women respond to what their friends are doing. What men want means absolutely nothing to them.

Best, Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 13:59

So Andie admits it would be difficult for her to do better at present. Sure she can’t imagine trading up, until she gets that special tingle.

Classic “chick logic” – I’m not like that…my friends aren’t like that…therefore women are not like that.

I actually had an older women tell me cocaine must be a poor way to make money because she doesn’t know anyone who uses it.

You have to remember I’ve spent a lot of time around women who claim to be “not like that” and it becomes very obvious that they ARE “like that”, they just don’t notice because they have little capacity for introspection.

Remember the time you dumped that guy for the other guy? Remember that? Oh yeah! Well that was only one time…

I had some woman who has non stop drama in her life tell me with a straight face that she hates drama. When I pointed out all the ways she invites it into her life she refused to see it and insisted none of it was her fault.

Chick logic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 14:03

Boxer – right but even at lower ages you are going to be sharing her with someone. She’s not going to be sitting there all alone, there’s a line around the block to screw her.

To get a girlfriend the worst thing you can ask is “do you have a boyfriend”. Basically you have to sort of jam your dick in there and see what happens.

The ones I’ve seen there is a reason they are single, they are bucking futs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Andie May 17, 2012 at 14:17

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20
Mark Plus May 17, 2012 at 14:19

I know one area where this doesn’t work very well. Many cryonicist men will tell you that they just can’t get their womenfolk to go along with their involvement in cryonics:

http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/is-that-what-love-is-the-hostile-wife-phenomenon-in-cryonics/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/magazine/11cryonics-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

On the other hand, I know a few women who signed up for cryosuspension on their own initiative, and not just to please the cryonicist men in their lives. For example:

http://www.alcor.org/magazine/2011/01/14/member-profile-bonnie-magee-alcor-finance-director/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Pops May 17, 2012 at 14:31

“If we are as clever, wily and conniving as you say, then I am truly impressed with my gender.”

Actually, you need be more impressed with the big wig alpha males who set the stage for your not so clever conniving to work to their benefit to the detriment of the larger population of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
Peter South May 17, 2012 at 14:39

@Andie

No I don’t.

If your husband wasn’t useful to you, you wouldn’t be with him. It’s as simple as that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Andie May 17, 2012 at 14:43

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22
Andie May 17, 2012 at 15:00

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19
Brigadon May 17, 2012 at 15:05

would you be with him were he not a good provider? If he lost his job tomorrow and was going to be dependent on you for the rest of his life?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 17, 2012 at 15:06

hehe, posting while I was posting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Boxer May 17, 2012 at 15:12

Dear Peter South:

Andie sez…
If my husband were disabled tomorrow – horribly disfigured, paralyzed, whatever you can imagine, I would still love him. I would never leave him. And if it were me who was injured, he wouldn’t leave me.

Men love, women pretend to love. Don’t take my word for it, though. Here’s an authority on the subject:

One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

-H.L. Mencken
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/2/7/1270/1270.txt

Read the whole text if you can. Mencken was not a misogynist. In fact, he admired women for their pragmatism and their inability to be swayed by foolish romantic notions. Much truth resides therein.

Boxer

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9
Andie May 17, 2012 at 15:28

@Brigadon

If Tim lost his job, I would be in fucking panic mode because I am a STAY AT HOME MOM. My last job was waitressing the early morning shift while he stayed at home with our daughter and then I took over so he could go and work on his dissertation. Prior to that I worked in banking and could probably still get back in an entry level accounting position. But maybe not.

I would work at WalMart, at Hooters, at Target, at Safeway if that is what we needed to survive. Nothing is beneath me. Well, prostitution. And maybe drug-dealing. Anything criminal would be off the table.

It would KILL Tim to not have a job. But it would NOT kill him to rely on me for a few months until we got things sorted. He KNOWS he can count on me. I’m just not the hysterical crying kind. I’m the “roll up your sleeves darling and let’s get to work” kind of gal.

And if he were permanently unemployable and it were up to me to fund the family, well, in a way, that’s a gift for the kids, isn’t it? They had Mommy when they were little and Daddy when they’re older.

It would be fine.

I cannot imagine sitting my kids down and saying: “Daddy has no job so he’s going to live somewhere else now and here’s your new Daddy”. That makes me feel like weeping. I would not do it.

Even IF I hated my husband (and I assure you, I do not), I LOVE my children too much to put them through that hell. I lived it. I know it. I will never do it. Never.

This makes me think of something: I raised my children. They were born at home into their father’s hands under the guidance of a midwife. They have never been left at a daycare center. They have never known life without Mommy. Do modern women hate men because they are indifferent to their children? If you don’t raise your own children, is it easier to hurt them? Do you just not care? Does anything hurt children more than depriving them of their Daddy?

Maybe it’s women entering the workforce during their prime child-bearing years that leads to such wanton cruelty. They do not bond with their children, and subsequently don’t give two shits about destroying their lives.

If women loved their children more, and more authentically, would they see how important it is to love their children’s father?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 15
Sam May 17, 2012 at 17:16

Excellent! Your article should be required reading for all high school boys. Maybe a few hard facts will bring them out from under the ether of feminist/hollywood bullshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
L May 17, 2012 at 17:56

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21
Devil's Advocate May 17, 2012 at 18:06

“They appealed to conceptual ethics like fairness, honesty, loyalty, and truth. This is how men think and operate; these notions are what men use to make decisions. Men need to get that women don’t operate that way. Women are biologically and genetically programmed to go with the bigger-better-deal.”

So if men can make sound decisions based on these notions, but women can’t, why do women still have rights?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
anexpat May 17, 2012 at 18:35

And guess what? Women are still miserable; probably more miserable then when they had fewer choices. And their choices have made everyone else miserable.

Walking in Hell nailed it.

The decline of Western Civilization started when MEN decided to give EQUAL power to women. It was like giving children the same legal status than adults.

A civilization cannot f*ck up with nature that way and stay unharmed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Joe Zamboni May 17, 2012 at 18:49

@ L – Men don’t need to justify acts that constitute their own defense. There is no moral requirement that has to be navigated before one defends oneself from abuse. Men need to wake up to the truth about hypergamy, and then use that truth to defend themselves against the laws of America which will allow the choices of women run roughshod over them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Eric May 17, 2012 at 19:05

Andie,

LOL—’Gamecocks’ defined: it was kind of a word-play I came up with a few months ago. Some MRAs follow a spurious philosophy, which is kind of a re-hash of Hugh Hefner’s ‘Playboy Philosophy’ of the 1960s, only well re-inforced today with pop psychology and pseudoscience. They refer to it as ‘Game’. According to this way of thinking, women can and should be manipulated into sex, which the Game proponents justify by pointing to all these supposed genetic inferiorities women possess.

As you can see from Rmaxd’s posts, they tend to be aggressive and belligerent in promoting their cause—like fighting roosters. Since a slang word for a fighting rooster matches the slang word for the male organ these guys venerate—’Gamecock’ seemed an apt description.

While I do believe that there are genetic differences between men and women, most of the problems women have today are products of their feminised education, augmented by considerable social reinforcement. Things like ‘hypergamy’, for example, doesn’t serve any biological or evolutionary purpose, so the notion of it ‘being part of women’s biology’ is absurd. Besides that, it isn’t even true, since—at least by my own observations—the majority of today’s women shun the ‘bigger, better deals’ in favor of dealing-down to bums, thugs and misfits.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11
Eric May 17, 2012 at 19:10

Zamboni:
‘Men need to wake up to the truth of hypergamy in order to protect themselves…&c.’

Assuming that hypergamy actually exists: how would knowledge of it change any laws or prevent the system from riding roughshod over men?

What needs to change is a wholesale repudiation of feminism before men have any protection. The basis of feminism is that men are not valued. That’s also the reason why so women many are sluts: they don’t value either men or sex. Laws won’t change until cultural values do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6
Oilsands May 17, 2012 at 19:45

Andie commented : ” This makes me think of something: I raised MY children.”

Not ” our” children.

Eff off feminist.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
Joe Zamboni May 17, 2012 at 21:29

@ Eric –

“Assuming that hypergamy actually exists: how would knowledge of it change any laws or prevent the system from riding roughshod over men?”

I am not suggesting systemic changes and nowhere in the article will you find any thing of that nature. While I concede such systemic changes in gender related laws are very much needed at this point in time, the reality is that such changes are not yet ready to take place. It is too early in the societal consciousness shift process. Everything starts first with the individual. Individual men need to change their consciousnesses, then we build a constituency, then the men in that constituency can work on getting the system and its laws changed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Zorro May 17, 2012 at 21:52

So the bottom line is that, as far as romantic relationships are concerned, women are a foaming-at-the-mouth pack of paralytic alcoholics with the self-awareness of Foster Brooks.

Seriously. Bottom line.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric May 17, 2012 at 21:54

Zamboni;
Fair enough; we’ll start with the individual man. Are you arguing that most American men are unaware of female marital infidelity or sluttiness? I think that even nut-cases like Futrelle are aware of it (though they are in deep denial about it).

Second, if ‘hypergamy’ is biologically programmed into women, what can men do about it, with or without a consensus? Nothing. By this definition, women are incapable of changing their own behavior.

‘It is too early in the societal shift process.’

If so, how does that explain the growing numbers of men who are going MGTOW, expatting, or otherwise turning their backs on the culture? In fact, the admission that a societal shift is needed at all demonstrates that the problem is cultural.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Eric May 17, 2012 at 22:00

FFP:

‘Competition, violence, achievement, sex and money—very masculine values.’

No, they are stereotypes of masculine values. Feminism teaches women to behave more like men, and feminised women adopt and put these stereotypes into practice. But since feminist teaching about men is wholly negative and stereotypical, feminised women typically have every male vice without a single male virtue. And they have no feminine traits at all.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 17, 2012 at 22:47

Eric
Hypergamy is not neccesarily the bigger better deal but the lastest gina tingle. The “herd mentality has abig influence on hypergamy. As has been noted on mens blogs women will chose a man that is a bum to fill the herd aproval of being better than a man. I guess that is where hypogamy comes from. It is three things that drive women Herd status,gina tingle and hypergamy all are tied together. The action is hypergamy but the motivation comes from the other two. Andie just descibed her motivation. Her whole family on both sides is never divorced. She grew up with family thanks givings and fourth of July BBQ’s with intact families. That is where her motivation is.
That is where we need to have the MRA women working. They need to be out shaming and changing the herd mentality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Eric May 17, 2012 at 23:28

Greyghost:
That’s kind of where I was going with this until the Gamecocks jumped in. I think that Zamboni is wrong in that ‘hypergamy’ is biologically defined: but the ‘herd mentality’ (and of course the ‘gina tingles’ LOL) are. Women are biologically more influenced socially—this a necessary aspect to raising and educating children &c.

As far as hypergamy goes, that has to be socially defined, and can’t be biological just by its nature. What Zamboni and the Gamecocks were arguing is that it’s biologically determined and ongoing. It might be true that normal women, like Andie, go for the ‘bigger better deals’ while they are still single; but once they find the best man they don’t continue looking. They go on to the next phase of family-building. That’s normal women. Of course, feminised women, like you pointed out, have an inverted logic, either that they are always entitled to something better, or finding the ‘biggest and better’ in men who are worse and lower.

The Gamecocks and PUA guys want to believe that women are, by nature, unfaithful, to justify their own behavior. They also want to believe that women want sex with them because they ARE the ‘bigger, better deals.’ I agree that the MRA women need to be changing what the herd mentality is, but that isn’t being helped by these PUA clods.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 02:40

@ Boxer
Good points, my sentiments exactly.

Andie – Even if what you said was true it’s such an aberration as to not be worth mentioning. And according to my experience it is NOT true, most women say the things you say.

We’re not going to keep pulling pins on grenades to see if one is finally different.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 03:01

“But to give up on love entirely? Why live then? Is pleasure really enough?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

I just wish hos and good food weren’t so expensive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 03:32

“I’m sorry you don’t believe in that kind of love. That has to come from a place of very deep pain. It may not be common, but it does exist. It used to be a lot more common. Husbands and wives who died within hours of one another.”

Condescending garbage. My grandparents were married 60 years or so.

My grandfather spent most of his time working in the fields or in the basement writing books. My grandmother spent most of her time eating and cooking.

It wasn’t miserable, like watching paint dry. People that long tolerate each other because you weren’t supposed to get divorced. They learn to cope with each other out of necessity and because two well adjusted people who have different expectations.

Not because they are “so in love”. BS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Rmaxd May 18, 2012 at 04:51

Meh, I warned you guys about Eric …

Hows your anti-gamer cult holding Eric, now that Twat Novy’s retreated to his basement?

Still think theres no such thing as hypergamy & theres no such thing as attraction?

The exact same nonsense you’ve spewed for months over at Dalrocks, BEFORE YOUR BAN

Also hows the vagina worshipping coming along, gotta keep the feminist ass licking in pristine condition right? …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9
greyghost May 18, 2012 at 05:28

Eric
“PUA guys want to believe that women are, by nature, unfaithful, to justify their own behavior. They also want to believe that women want sex with them because they ARE the ‘bigger, better deals.’ I agree that the MRA women need to be changing what the herd mentality is, but that isn’t being helped by these PUA clods.”
Today women are unfaithful when there is no consequence. And besides that you can not forget about the aversion to responsibility and the current feminist ideal of you are all good entitlement. Combine that with the narural childish selfishness and we have sluts for the picking and a society of worthless women. Women are driven by hypergamy but we need to confuse what the definition of a better deal is and use that as a bio tendancy for women. Andie is a perfect example of the power of hypergamy. She can be just as self interested as any other women what makes her different is the herd she is motivated to follow. We can say she is a good wife or we can say she is a selfish bitch the behavior she is using is the same. This is how we kill the feminist beast with out relying on the impossible and stupid idea of enlightening women to the damage they are causing.
BTW the PUA and players are a a good way to change the herd mentality. Those guys get to use up the fertile years of the entitled empowered slut. When the slut gets kicked off the cock carousel all that will be left are MGTOW or manginas. I don’t really see anything wrong with PUA as an MRA.I think having guys out there is great.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Rmaxd May 18, 2012 at 06:03

@Greyghost

Great post …

Enlightening women on how they screw over men, is ridiculously pointless, theyve been doing it for centuries

In fact women are taught from birth by their mothers, & the media how to screw over beta’s & froth at the mouth for alpha’s …

PUA & Game basically allows men to engage women on their own terms, gaming women is relatively easy

PUA & Game also teaches you how to defend yourself against skanks, sluts & most importantly gold diggers

It also teaches you how to defend yourself against a wife, not haaaapy in her marriage, or falling out of love with you … check Athol Kays site for details …

Game also saves men stupid enough to get married & relationships, as demonstrated by Athol Kay, who’s probably saved more men from divorce then any divorce lawyer …

The fact is anti-gamer cult members ie. Eric want to continue to see women as pure virginal brides, instead of the skanks they are today …

The fact is PUA & Game is a massive movement of men, in fact the largest male movement today, with millions of members

Whats even more great about the PUA & Game community, theyve managed to do what the MRA hasnt …

Theyve kept it free of women for decades now …

There is no PUA or Game for women … this fact alone is what makes PUA & Game so great

The PUA & Game community achieved the millions of members globally, without a single woman playing any real part in its success …

Unlike feminism, MILLIONS of men AND women benefitted …

Most ppl like to think of the MRA movement as the counterpart to feminism

When in fact, the PUA & Gaming community has been teaching men, the real truth about women & feminists … for a long time …

The major difference between the PUA & MRA community, the PUA community gives men REAL tools to manipulate & use women to their advantage

If you dont know how to fight the enemy, that is women infected by the disease of feminism , & gold diggers & skanks, all women EVERY man will meet in his lifetime

If you dont know how to defend yourself against those who would steal from you, destroy you emotionally & financially, you will never win any type of victory …

Women are modern day predators … keep that in mind, before listening to some anti-gamer retard like Eric, who tells you dont need game …

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8
Matt May 18, 2012 at 07:24

I disagree with the assertion above that the main pleasures of both Romance and Sci Fi genre works are escapism.

Escapism is a pleasure of ALL fiction. What is specific to sci fi is the examination of the human condition by way of fantastic (though plausible) technologies. What is specific to Romance is that it is designed to be erotically stimulating to women.

Where they differ is that erotic stimulation does not necessitate true or accurate portrayals of human nature, while exploring the human condition does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jacko May 18, 2012 at 07:50

Peter South:

Interesting wikipedia article on schizoid personality disorder. Schizoid personality does not seem to me to be a real “disorder” per se. It’s just that people who are “different” are often labeled as having a disorder.

Acutally, it probably helps a guy to go MGTOW if he has schizoid personality disorder. This is not a bad thing; it’s good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Migu May 18, 2012 at 07:55

Oh fun gametards.

All you need to know is Briffault’s law. That is it. Understand that, and you have all the game you will ever need. No reason to string it out in frames and sets and use it as a justification for shitty behavior.

Sure it works, but it doesn’t protect you from anything, it makes you an easy target, a very easy target. And if you ever get tagged with reputation, good luck once you make an enemy. What do you have to fall back. “I use bitches because it’s what they want and what they deserver.” Yeah that will protect you.

I’m sure women have never heard of PUA and Game, and I’m sure they never recognize when it is being pulled on them. Nahh they wouldn’t research something like game. They would never google “How to pick up a woman” Nope; only “MRA Women” know about it.

You game guys make me laugh. Getting a girl is as simple as asking her out and telling her your intentions. Some are down, and some go down. The girls that go down are the bad ones. Game in one sentence. Simple really.

Remember Briffault to protect yourself.

See the best way to use game is as follows:

Walk up to a girl, spit in front of her, and say “Monopoly Bitch”

Now that is how spit some game. “Candyland Ho” works too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
PrettyGenie May 18, 2012 at 08:08

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

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 20
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 10:18

@Jacko

Exactly it is a cultural bias – from the same article:

The psychologist Nancy McWilliams argues that the definition of SPD is flawed due to cultural bias: “One reason schizoid people are pathologized is because they are comparatively rare. People in majorities tend to assume that their own psychology is normative and to equate difference with inferiority”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Eric May 18, 2012 at 11:23

Lol, Rmaxd, you’re a nitwit.

Your talk about cults is more projection, Dumbass. You guys talk about Game like it was some lost book of the New Testament you’ve just discovered. LOL

BTW, you still never told us (before your guru Dalrock’s ban) exactly which cult I supposedly belong to, or what ‘Twat Novy’ means? Is all that some secret teaching Roissy only imparts to his inner circle disciples or something?LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Eric May 18, 2012 at 11:37

Migu:

Exactly. Another thing that cracks me up about the Gamecocks is that they all believe that— even though women don’t value men or value relationships with men— somehow women really want nothing more than sex with a Gamecock! THAT they value! LOL

And ask a PUA dolt why this so? Answer: ‘Cuz we’re Alpha studs. Huh Huh Huh Huh.’

I wonder, though, when these guys get a false accusation levelled against them (or, given the way they behave, maybe not even a false one) just how many clipped-haired, mean-faced female judges are impressed enough with their Alpha demeanors to let them off the hook? The Gamecocks never want to talk about that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Eric May 18, 2012 at 11:47

Greyghost:
‘Today women are unfaithful when there is no consequence.”

True. But isn’t being PUA rewarding that kind of behavior? Also, even though there are no consequences for women being unfaithful, there are plenty of consequences for men who are.

‘BTW, PUA players…use up the entitlement sluts &c.’

I really don’t care so much if idiots like Rmaxd are the ones who make themselves the victims of these sluts, but a lot of innocent men get hurt in the process.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
greyghost May 18, 2012 at 12:04

Eric
The reeard for an unfaithful woman is acommitment from a beta man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric May 18, 2012 at 12:16

Greyghost:
Wouldn’t it be more constructive, though, to deter ‘beta’ men from rewarding unfaithful women in the first place?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 12:34

PrettyGenie
Yessss because men *never* decide to trade up for the hotter girl with the bigger boobs. Never ever happens.

Right, then he takes the house, the car and the kids and collects CS and Alimony and the wife gets laid off and ends up in jail. It’s very similar.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Georice81 May 18, 2012 at 12:36

Eric wrote:
“Wouldn’t it be more constructive, though, to deter ‘beta’ men from rewarding unfaithful women in the first place?”

Bingo. That is part of the problem. If we stop rewarding sluts and adulteresses they will get the message.

OT: A friend of mine has been telling me about a young man who’s wife left him together with the kids. He was cheating on her and didn’t seem to care too much about the family. It is quite telling that I now consider this to be a breathe of fresh air! It is the guy, not the gal that did the cheating!!!! (He is Brazilian… maybe that has something to do with it?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 18, 2012 at 12:46

Eric, Please listen to me. This is really important.

PUA’s are the ONLY ONES fighting the good fight for men.

They prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ANY man can get laid by just about any woman. Betas and manginas do not HAVE to listen to the feminist rhetoric. They can ‘go their own way’, WITHOUT having to give up the pleasures of regular pussy, and they show exactly how selfish, mean-spirited, and hormone-instinct driven women truly are. All it takes is training and interest, and women have NO DEFENSE against game. None. The best they are able to do is stave off some of the less-capable players.

Secondly, PUA’s are DESTROYING women. You may not believe this, but it is neccssary for women to understand that what they are doing is affecting themselves. They show clearly the eventual direction that feminism is pushing men without hope, and galvanize the problem. After a woman has spent time on the cock carousel, she is utterly useless for anything like a family. This is PUNISHMENT. And as more and more men prove that they both don’t need women for more than sex (SMGTOW?) and childrearing, women get more and more desperate and drive more and more men into taking the red pill, simply to understand why this is happening.

So the question is, would you rather have PUA’s? Or Grass Eaters?
No offense, but I will take bastards over cuntboys any day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Peter South May 18, 2012 at 13:13

@Andie “That’s sad. If I were not useful to my husband, what do you think he would do?”

Call the pigs, have you kicked out of the house, file for full custody, child support, alimony and when you fell behind on the payments have you thrown in jail.

Then mock you for being a deadbeat while he fucks his young sexy female attack lawyer.

He would tell the kids that you don’t care about them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 18, 2012 at 14:56

Erric
Yes we do tell beta males to avoid sluts. Then we sendd the sluts to the PUA and the cock carousel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Rob May 18, 2012 at 14:58

I think it’s true that women are hypergamous – in that they always look to “marry up” or in other words, they are in relationships for the benefits a man confers upon her, thus, Briffault’s Law comes into play as well as its corollaries:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

The Corollaries to Briffault’s Law:

1 – Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 – Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 – A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

What this means is that a man cannot simply hand over all the benefits of associating with him over to the woman. He must keep the benefits he bestows upon her under his control, and learn to say no often, as she will naturally try to get him to pass them on to her. No, I won’t spend $100 for roses on Valentine’s Day. No, we’re not going to Hawaii for a vacation (unless you are paying, Toots!) No, you cannot move in with me. No, you cannot move in now that you’ve been evicted – that is what your girlfriend’s couch or your parent’s spare room is for. NO! We won’t get be getting married. No! You are not going on the pill so we can have bareback sex. No. No. No. No! NO! NO!

The man must keep the benefits, or the lure of the benefit, completely under his control. Once they become her domain, it simply doesn’t matter to her and becomes “What have you done for me lately?”

Our culture and its laws have made it very, very difficult for a man to maintain control over the benefits he bestows upon women. No! is the most valuable word a man can learn in a relationship.

And, while it is true that women are quite willing to trade up when it suits them, and while it is also true that women’s “love” for a man is rarely as deep as the man’s love is for her, what a lot of the game community is ignoring is the fact that humans naturally pair-bond.

Yes, it is true, mating behaviour is mediated in the brainstem and spinal cord (the old, or reptile brain) and not the cortex (thinking brain), but what is left out is that humans naturally pair-bond because of our mammalian/middle brain. Now, the mammalian brain (which causes mammals to have emotion) is not as old as the reptilian brain, but the mammalian brain is still a factor in human behaviour – and thus why humans have exhibited pair-bonding for a few hundred thousand years now (lol, however those brilliant Ph D-tards calculate such timing).

Men and women both naturally pair bond. The problem comes in that women’s pair-bonding feature is not for lifetime monogamy, but rather based upon a four year mating cycle called “Rotating Polyandry,” – or serial monogamy – where she seeks a birth-spacing/love cycle of four years (enough time to fall in love, get pregnant, give birth, recuperate, then wean the child until it can walk, talk and feed itself), each time this is complete, she moves on and seeks to pair-bond with a different male to ensure genetic diversity.

But, she still pair bonds. The only thing you have to realize is that her pair-bond is designed to be time-limited. Once the timer runs out, her interest in you becomes dark and sinister. Also, one never falls in love as much as one does the first time. It is like sticky tape – the more you apply it, peel it off, and re-apply it, the less sticky it becomes. (Thus why a man, should he try to marry, ought to choose a virgin or one to two previous partners at the most – and you can never be sure, because women lie as easy as they breathe). A woman who has ridden the cock-carousel with 30 men does not pair-bond very easily anymore, and the time-limit on her relationship with you is drastically shortened.

Once a woman’s time-limit is up and her interest in you becomes dark and sinister, this is when she goes into a “binge and purge cycle.” She starts with-holding sex in order to manipulate you. Lots of husbands fall for this and think she’s not interested in sex anymore – this is not true. What she is doing is starving her own sexual desire in order to drive up her sexual value to manipulate you. (Once a woman starts refusing you sex, it is time to dump her – she does not have pure interests in you anymore). Then, after about a year or so of her denying her own sexual desires, she gets rid of the man (and tries to keep all of his benefits) and THEN goes on a sexual binge where she fucks thug after thug, trying to satiate her starving sexual desire. Once she has done this, she again looks for a more suitable long-term mate who confers “benefits” upon her, she pair-bonds again, and the whole cycle starts over again.

It is true that “all women are available” but what is not true is that “all women are available all of the time.” This is why the PUA-sphere (the ones who actually know what they are talking about) are always looking for IOI’s (Indications of Interest). What you want to do, if you are a “player” looking for easy, commitment free sex, is be the second guy to screw her after she splits up with her long-term mate. The first guy is usually an emotional tampon, or an orbiter, who ends up getting royally screwed because he is usually only being used as an emotional sounding board, or as a tool for the woman to gauge her sexual market value. To be a good “player,” you want to be the guy that catches her in the middle of her binge phase. This is the phase where she goes nuts and sucks and fucks up a storm and does things her ex-husband/boyfriend never dreamed she would do. But, it is very time limited. Once her “binge” is done and she has satiated herself, it is back to Briffault’s Law.

It works just like people being in the market for buying a car. All people are in the market to buy a car… but not all people are in the market to buy a car right now. There is a “buyer’s cycle” that takes a few years. You first buy a new car and are very happy. (You are no longer “in the market’). After a couple of years, you still don’t mind your car, but now it is becoming ho-hum, but it’s still ok. Then after four or five years or so, the new models are out, your “old” model has a few dings and scratches… the ads on TV are starting to attract you… you go to a car dealership after hours to peruse what’s available, and finally you work up the courage to go in during business and take one for a test drive… now you are “in the market” again. To the salesman, you are a “hot prospect.” (And by this time, you are). The same thing goes on with women in the “dating market.” The key is learning how to find the small pool of women who are “in the market right now.”

In the old days, before Father Custody was destroyed in the 1870’s, the principle of Briffault’s Law was enforced and overcome/fulfilled because if a woman left the husband, she lost both her children and access to Dad’s paycheck. Since then, she has been able to use the children as “mutilated beggars” to rob Dad of his paycheck through the courts in order to fund her children. This is where the divorce craze began, not in the 1970’s when No-Fault Divorce was introduced.

”There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers”. — Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce” — James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

No-fault Divorce in the 1970’s merely simplified things. Before that, it was kind of a joke in that even if there was no “fault,” you could still divorce under the fault of “cruelty,” which could basically be anything, just like “abuse” can be anything today. An argument that makes her cry (He was CRUEL to me), he didn’t do this or that for me (He was CRUEL to me). Even Belfort Bax talks of this being a joke a century ago. So, rather than having to go through the whole ridiculous process of finding fault in “cruelty,” it became “just give her the damn divorce already.” (It wasn’t THAT difficult to divorce before the 1970’s – lol, look at Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe).

What really happened in the 1970’s was that women entered the work-force in large numbers – thus, it further undermined Briffault’s Law (Dad’s paycheck was not as much of a “benefit” as it was before) and also, hypergamy again came into play – a woman making $60,000/yr does not find a man making $40,000/yr to be attractive because of it. She needs to find a man making $100,000/yr to hypergamously “move up.”

Foreign women are indeed a better bet than the typical Ameriskank or Mapleskank (sorry, don’t know what the rest of you guys call your skanks). The reason they are a better bet is because you have better ability to be hypergamously desirable to a larger pool of women – putting you in better control of choosing a suitable, high value mate, and also, you are able to enforce Briffault’s Law and “keep her around” via the “providing a benefit to continue association principle.” Although, if I were to seek out a foreign chick, I would tuck all my money safely away in a numbered account in the Turks and Caicos Islands so it is 100% safe from her being able to get her hands on it – that “benefit” is then securely under your control, and then go abroad and stay there. Once you bring her back to Western Culture, she quickly adopts the attitude of the women around her – no matter her background – go to live in her country and don’t bring her back here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Eric May 18, 2012 at 15:58

Rob;
That’s an excellent analysis, though I would add to it that, in pair bonding, the same is likely true of a man who’s also ridden the cock-carousel 30 times. Notice that these PUA dunces all seem just as oblivious to the social consequences of their behavior as the sluts do (assuming, of course, that they REALLY have as much sex as they brag about; and that’s a huge assumption).

The time-limit to female bonding is also open to some question. But since monogamy has been in our culture for so long, it’s difficult to ascertain whether females tend to monogamy or hypergamy without comprehensive knowledge of social conditions in prehistoric times. Most of what we know about those times can only be deduced from ancient legends. It’s one thing to offer one or the other as a theory; it’s another to lay one down like a dogmatic and unquestionable fact, as Zamboni does.

The Ancient Greeks had an interesting legend about the origins of monogamy. According to their story, Cecerops (the first king of Athens) instituted it in return for the goddess Minerva’s blessing on the city. Prior to that time, women were considered common property of the community. The Greeks interpreted the legend in terms of the time-limit you described. Since Minerva was depicted as the embodiment of feminine wisdom (intuition) and was also a perpetual virgin, the Greeks held that monogamy protected women from the consequences of hypergamy. While it’s true that the time-limit is in play; it’s also true that, as a woman ages her sexual value decreases—which in a ‘free love’ society puts women at a severe disadvantage. (Notice how, in our own culture, aging female celebrities are constantly marginalizing their younger competition and trying to re-invent themselves as sexually appealling). Monogamy put a restraint on that time-limit by making fidelity in a woman’s best interest, since, in a culture structured like that, there are no ‘trading up’ options available. That’s another reason why feminists hate the institution of marriage, BTW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Eric May 18, 2012 at 16:10

Brigadon:

‘They prove that any man can get laid by just about any woman.”

I think that any man’s who’s been in the American dating scene has that proven to himself already. I knew that before I knew of the MRM!

“They show how selfish, mean-spirited, and hormone-driven women really are.”

Ditto. I don’t think most men need to have this ‘proven’ to them by other men. Women’s own actions speak for themselves!

‘Women need to understand that they are destroying themselves’

Agreed. But how is rewarding them with sex a solution? We all depreciate women for chasing thugs and riding the cock-carousel. I don’t see how giving them more thugs to chase or making a bigger carousel is going to help.

What the PUA guys are doing might have some justification if (1) women actually felt any shame over their behavior; and (2) if women’s bad behavior wasn’t supported at the point of a bayonet by misandryist laws. Since the first point is true, PUA doesn’t accomplish anything; and because the second is true, men who practice PUA are more likely to hurt themselves than the women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
DruidV May 18, 2012 at 22:09

I play bass in a rock band at many venues each year and I can’t tell you how many times a night the “hawt” meme is regurgitated by self styled PUA’s. ”
One example:

“She’s got mace on her key ring. She’s hawt!”

Since I’m paid to be cordial with all patrons, twats and douchebags alike, I never actually ask these wannabee playboys if they mean “hawt” like depleted uranium, or “hawt” like your casual friend’s “borrowed” “cousin”s” car in which you have been cruising all night and to no one’s real surprise, which the police have just informed you is stolen.

It always amuses me early on in the evening to see these barfly cunts primping preening, lathering on the fake with paint rollers. Ignoring me completely, of course and giving me the ole’ gold-digger stink eye. That is until I return from the stage.

Why then, it’s a virtual buffet of femalian toxic waste for my immediate inspection, perusal and consumption. Depleted Uranium and all her biohazardously “hawt” friends are now there and all up in my grill!!! (blecccccch!!!)

DU and all her “hawt” friends that you yourself may even know. “Hawt” friends, like pond scum and garbage dump, then there’s good old septic tank, and biohazard. They are thick as thieves I tell ya. Last and most certainly least, is oil slick.

I’m sure you fellows and gentlemen need no physical description of these fine flowers of femininity, which as I explained, only burst forth from the woodwork AFTER I establish some status as a “desirable” male.

Also, I suppose the fact that I wear a wedding ring isn’t doing much to stem the flow of succubi now overwhelmed with intrigue and interest. The sight of that shiny gold band onmy left ring fingers is absolutely irresistible to the modern Ameriskank. Of course I understand the dangers of hanging out with radioactive waste, and so I politely decline any and all offers to lie down with DOGS.

They cannot fathom or cope with my indifference.

Pavlovian, really…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Brigadon May 18, 2012 at 22:44

@Eric-
“I think that any man’s who’s been in the American dating scene has that proven to himself already. I knew that before I knew of the MRM!”

You knew of that already. Good for you. Millions of american men have NO clue. and they are not idiots or losers either. They are simply in circumstances where it does not become easily apparent, or are so busy tying off loose ends that it never occurs to them.

_I_ had no clue that there were alternatives to being a public mancarpet and a private dom until I watched the Doctor Phil show with Dick… realized that some of what he said made a hell of a lot of sense, went to his discussion board and found the MRM and PUA’s. And I am not stupid, or socially retarded, I simply thought that ‘how to pick up trashy women’ was a joke book.

“Ditto. I don’t think most men need to have this ‘proven’ to them by other men. Women’s own actions speak for themselves!”
Admittedly this was 20 years ago, but I didn’t realize it until I got divorced while I was on a business trip. by surprise.

And women DO feel shame over their behavior. They just bury it with medication, counselling, and games to improve their ‘self esteem’. And frankly, I hope I am alive to hear the crying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Eric May 18, 2012 at 23:11

Brigadon:

“Women do feel shame over their behavior. They just bury it with medication, counselling, and games to improve their self-esteem.”

True. But don’t you see that you’re then going to be ‘gaming’ a female twice as unstable and twice as dangerous as she was before? And the law is going to be on HER side, not yours, when it comes to a show-down.

This is one of the reasons I oppose PUA, I think it’s dangerous for men. These feminised women are conditioned to fight men and treat us as enemies. And because the system is completely feminised, there’s no way for a man to out-manouvre them on their own terms without either sinking to their level or setting himself up for a legal disaster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Eric May 18, 2012 at 23:23

Druid:
Yeah, these Ameroskanks disgust me. Your story reminded of the so-called ‘scandal’ around Tiger Woods. Did the fact that he was a married man with kids stop any of those ‘fine flowers of femininity’ from coming on to him? LOL. Afterwards, they all became celebrities while Tiger went down in disgrace.

Man-hating bitches, all of ‘em!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 18, 2012 at 23:38

@Eric- Think of it this way.
No nation is ever galvanized into acting in it’s own defense from a corrupt government until the injustice and abuse gets so bad that every man’s face is rubbed in it every minute of every day.

Let’s put it this way… if 9/11 was NOT sponsored by the CIA, They surely wish they had thought of it first. There was no other way to galvanize america into invading the middle east wholesale.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
DruidV May 18, 2012 at 23:47

Eric:

Just to clarify; I never said I was actually married. I only allude to it so I can watch em squirm.

They’re finally tasting some of their own bitter 50+ year prescription. I do what I can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Attila May 19, 2012 at 07:49

Last night I was at an outdoor café- sitting at a table right next to 4 guys (mostly in their 30s except for one guy in this 50s) and the conversation was mind-bogglingly stupid. The only thing they talked about was about the differences in women, how many they scored, and of what nationalities. All the while I thought of how unaware and ape-like their entire behavior was- not the slightest trace of distancing/reflection about what their encounters were all about or about anything higher than “scoring”. Nothing about politics, history, hobbies, NOTHING, all primary simian instinct. By the way – they were all “white”. The guy in his fifties (a Frenchman) was the sorriest of the lot — pontificating about all the one’s he’s “had”.

THESE SUCKERS ARE THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
DruidV May 19, 2012 at 09:03

Careful Atilla,

Expecting any kind of self awareness or reflection from PUA’s is a dangerous game. Should you choose to actually voice your disgust at these simpering simians, you will most likely be subject to verbal as well as physical abuse from said PUA’s as well as their flavor of the week.

These “people” are so hopelessly dependent on the approval of the females who designed, run and encourage the blue pill matrix that they will fight to “protect” it.

Not uncommon of course, are the inevitable accusations of homosexuality, should you choose to forgo the toxic soup these gluttons guzzle down like it’s piss from the virgin mary or something.

My experience shows that you may as well keep it to yourself and only attempt to plant tiny seeds in willing, watered soil. (i.e. pissed off NG’s who are just awakening and beginning to see the light). Even in these cases discretion is key and overkill is your enemy.

Subtle works on most NG’s (as they are quite intelligent) and their powers of reason will fill in the required blanks for them. (Just like yours did.)

Personal horror stories couched in humorous verbiage work best. Humor sells anything, as every nut-punched sit-com male will attest to.

Anger is another of your worst enemies and even though it may seem as if your righteous (and yes, it IS) indignation should be easily felt and shared by your “audience”, chances are you will be run out of town on a rail.

Personally, I strive to save only those that will attempt to reach for help.

I would never walk into a bar and grab a tail spinning alcoholic buddy off his bar stool and attempt to rage at him, to get him to quit it.
It simply won’t work and I would instead have a brand new enemy…

Neither would I attempt to retrieve PUa’s or NG’s who unashamedly wallow in it.

I will never feel bad about that decision either.

Stupid is as stupid does. Also, it can’t be cured.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
The Dude May 19, 2012 at 09:41

Rob, thank you for your insight. I found your contributions and thoughts in this thread quite interesting and you have given me a bit to research :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 19, 2012 at 10:53

PUA are not neccesarly MRA’s. They are mostly blue piller types that have come across a way to get pussy. They are not even true alpha types either. An alpha is generally as worthless and an unsutainable drain on society as any woman. All they are is someone women get the gina tingle from and that is it. Other than that they make shitty team mates ,husbands,friends, have no sense of loyalty or duty to any thing but themselves. A womans dream come true.
The PUA are beta types that place a high personal value on getting pussy. Nothing wrong with it as far as I am concerned. Me personally I hate that pulling pussy shit. I could pull a chick the night I met them at a club and she was a girlfriend and I would just hit that same pussy until I got traded in. Take a a couple months off and got back to work and do it again. I hate romance, I hate dating, it is just bullshit you have to put up with for pussy. I just assume have a slut booty call on speed dial. I even talked with a bunch of guys at work about putting up a piece of ass in an apartment some and we would just go over hit it at agreed to times. Even that is too much of a hassle. Besides being married. Now for a man that gets off on that and enjoys it I say enjoy that pussy son.
Eric
As an MRA warrior you don’t have to defend every square inch of territory. Some men you don’t need to defend. I just want miserable unhappy women working into their post fertility years alone and unentitled. Remember the example of Andie about best selfish interest. Who knows what the herd meme will be to avoid involuntary childless spinsterhood.
The MRM is not about the relationship between men and women. I don’t care live your life. It is about the laws of misandry. What can we do to force the biggest voting block to childishly and wickedly with full selfish interest to aggressively remove the laws of misandry. All of the rest of this is just bullshit. Including this exchange on PUA the way It looks to being framed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Eric May 19, 2012 at 12:04

Greyghost:
You’re right about this, actually the majority of Game-guys only see Game as a’tool’ or a way of coping with feminsed society. I don’t agree with them, but don’t have a problem with them either—kind of like my attitude towards vegetarians! But there is a certain element in the Game culture, like Rmaxd, who want to impose their interpretations of Game on the MRM. These guys need to be slapped down every so often, or the MRM gets a bad name.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Boxer May 19, 2012 at 12:12

An alpha is generally as worthless and an unsutainable drain on society as any woman.

As a guy with a trust fund, who is 192cm (6ft 3in) tall, I tend to agree in theory. NAAALT though.

The people derided as being “beta males” are rightly shamed, but only if they grovel and beg for female attention. For the most part, I admire and aspire to become a beta male. Betas go to work every day busting their asses, discovering, building and codifying cool new stuff. We got to the moon and back on the backs of the beta male. The computer I type on was developed and built by the beta male.

A real alpha male is a man who can lead men. This requires a certain skill set that some men simply aren’t born with. What PUAs call an alpha male, in contrast, is someone who can lead women. Any man can do this, simply by learning a few simple tricks.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Brigadon May 19, 2012 at 12:48

Boxer, I think the contrast here is between ‘alphas’ and ‘alpha thugs’.

Many men are actually born alphas, I would even daresay most of them, and their alphaness is trained away by their childhood. Alpha literally means ‘highest ranked’, or ‘leader’.

‘Alpha thug’ however, could be more properly termed Gamma Males. They are capable of controlling a band, but not due to any sort of leadership ability… they simply are the biggest and the meanest, and would promptly drive a tribe into death.
They are fringers. They are the ones that come into camp while the true alphas and strong betas are away, and terrify the omegas and dominate and fuck the females.
if true alphas return, the gammas are driven off by the pack or killed. But they do serve a valuable purpose, in adding genetic diversity to a pack that might otherwise become too close and inbred.

But in the end, They are no more ‘alpha’ than the females in a tribe hierarchy would be. Females WANT the ‘alpha thug’ to become pack leader, and take a responsible role, but the gammas have no interest in anything beyond the moment.

They are the young, rutting lions that poach at the edge of an established alpha’s pack. The rogues that steal into camp while the males hunt, and they almost always end up either dead, or outgrowing the phase and becoming a true leader or alpha.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd May 19, 2012 at 12:51

So true Boxer …

Unfortunately the pro-emasculists, the correct term for anti-gamers, dont even want men to know those simple tricks …

FOR THE RECORD, I dont want game to become a part of the MRA …

The MRA is a mens rights movement, not a pick up chicks movement …

Game IS relevant when talking about relationships & helping men stupid enough to get married …

Hilariously anti-gamers dont even want game discussed when game obviously helps men in their relationships with men & dealing with batshit crazy wives, who fall out of love in their marriage …

Btw when people like Dalrock & Athol Kay, & even W.F. Price have not only commented on game, but also endorse & support it …

Game doesnt need to be validated, men have always practised game,

Picking up sluts is ridiculously easy …

Now being a masculine, strong leader … thats something the likes of eric, keyster, & the rest of anti-gamers will never experience …

Which is why most gamers & alphas cant stand anti-gamers …

Anti-gamers havent got a clue about being masculine … which is why their so against men learning to handle women …

Game is all about being naturally masculine

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Brigadon May 20, 2012 at 02:03

I disagree. I believe that game is about making yourself appear temporarily as an ‘alpha thug’ in order to obtain breeding rights. It does not make you more alpha, at best (If you are weak-minded) it can turn you into a permanent ‘alpha thug’

However, I do not scorn the practice. I consider it a valuable tool for men who would otherwise be at the bottom of the breeding list. Learning to temporarily mimic the behaviors of the best genetic stock is a valuable lesson that is practiced everywhere in the animal world… from Lions to cuttlefish.

But like Rmaxd, I do not think that it belongs in the MRA. I think it should be TAUGHT to MRA’s, but for it’s value alone, not as part of a political agenda. Game, at it’s heart, is nothing but masculine education, much as Honor, morality, and faith are concepts that should be taught to young men.

Essentially ‘game’ is no more a political movement than mathematics. It is a valuable tool, not a social stance, and ‘Game’ specialists are no more qualified to talk on political issues than rock stars and vegan Actresses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 20, 2012 at 07:10

Outstanding Brigadon

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
T May 20, 2012 at 18:06

Here’s your problem Ron:

you want a wife to be a ‘……… loyal SERVANT’

Aint gonna happen pal. Grow up and quit seeing men as masters- it’ll never come back , and you don’t deserve it anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13
ed May 20, 2012 at 21:24

Men & Women are NOT meant to stay together forever

Found this article on the Daily Mail website, never a truer word spoken…..now bring on the comments from Smug and Happy Couples – bring em on!!!!!!!!!!

My comments are in bold/italics…..

==================================

We exist in two different time zones. Men want to be happy right now, today, preferably in the company of a beautiful woman. Tomorrow can wait.

Women, on the other hand, are constantly concerned with the future, and with their prospects financially, emotionally and sexually.

The reason, I believe, is that we are fundamentally selfish beings, only really interested in ourselves.

Some people claim to be lovingly entwined with their partners. They’re deluded or lying. I’m in my mid-30s and have met no such couple.

I’ve known couples of all races and ages, some of them in arranged marriages – all of them simmering with tension and dissonance. [Yes, same here]

I’ve never met a couple I’ve envied. I don’t feel sad admitting this. I feel liberated. I no longer cling to the myth that relationships create happiness, and I don’t feel guilty or alone when feeling dissatisfied in my marriage. [Exactly my sentiments!!]

Everyone else feels this, whether they admit it or not.

Men and women speak two different tongues. We can barely even get to know each other, let alone make each other happy.

Women are pathological worriers, especially the intelligent and successful ones.

I remember how, at university, the brightest girls were the most meticulous notetakers during lectures, while the boys slouched through them half-asleep.

Women can’t trust their abilities and go with the flow. Even the most capable ones are riddled with doubts and desperate for security.

And that means security for the future: are they going to meet a nice man they can take home to meet their mother? Are they going to have a nice house with a conservatory at the back?

Women think and think about their lives, they plan and scheme and imagine how things might go with Mike or Sam or Joe. Who would be the best husband, the best father, the best lover? Which would have the best pension plan?

Meanwhile Mike and Sam and Joe are probably just thinking about whether the woman in question will sleep with them tonight, and who is going to win the Champions League this summer.

I remember when I proposed to my wife. We were lying in our hotel bed, on holiday in Thailand. We’d been living together for six months and my wife was now pestering me to find out where our relationship was ‘going’.

I had no idea where we were ‘going’, and it was late and I was tired. I told her that if we were still together in a year’s time I’d marry her. Then I went to sleep. Romantic, huh?

My answer was a reasonable response to her demands to know what the future held. It was rational to think that after we’d been together for 18 months that marriage was a logical continuation.

The topic wasn’t discussed again for over a year, until I came across an envelope in her desk drawer.

It held the booking receipt for the country house she’d gone out on her own and hired for the wedding. Though I hadn’t been informed of this, I wasn’t upset. I had, after all, proposed to her. [My mum did this to my dad - when he was at sea in the Merchant Navy and after they'd been engaged for YEARS, she booked the church and sent him a letter saying he had to be there or it was over....he duly turned up!]

Women generally drive the direction of relationships, partly because most men are happy just to be laissez-faire, but also because women are natural control freaks, simply because they have an inbuilt paranoia that their lives are going to go horribly awry.

For example, no intelligent man spontaneously asks a woman to marry him. She will let him know well in advance via hints, leading questions and outright nagging that she wants to get hitched.

She might squeal with mock surprise when he offers that ring, but she’ll have been nudging him to do it for months if not years.

One man I know proposed on one knee to his long-term girlfriend in their room at a country house hotel. Even as he began his spiel, she began shaking her head violently.

In the end, she had to tell him this was not the kind of place she’d always imagined would be the setting for her proposal. Only a windswept hillside would do. She, you see, had been planning for this moment in her mind for years. [OMG I can't believe the cheek of the daft bint....]

Similarly, men become fathers having never really thought about it. In my experience, they are often swayed by the desires of their partners.

Very few women get pregnant by accident; they generally know exactly what they’re doing. The fathers I know have admitted to being crestfallen when a girlfriend first told them she was pregnant. It was a shock end to their independence they’d never properly contemplated.

But they feigned jubilation and made the usual offers of support.

It generally takes the arrival of an unplanned child for a man to start scrupulously practising safe sex.

One of the ironies of this gulf between the mindset and aspirations of the sexes is that a woman’s cloying need for certainty often drives men to be unfaithful.

The oppressive intimacy they force onto a relationship – always wanting reassurance, and always wanting to know what he is thinking and feeling – has the effect of making him seek a cheap ego boost elsewhere.

Men cheat to re-establish their sense of independence, to carve themselves a brief space with someone else that doesn’t involve their partner.

My own adulteries – which occurred a couple of years ago on a long trip abroad – were driven by the need to escape the overbearing intimacy of married life.

Women will hate me for doing this and not being coy when admitting it. But I know very few men who’ve been faithful to their partner. The only men I’ve discussed sex honestly with who’ve never strayed are both gay.

I’m not the greatest husband material going, but it hasn’t cured my wife’s compulsion to seek permanence with me. After she uncovered my misbehaviour we separated briefly, but got back together and decided to make a fresh start in a new house. I had nothing to contribute to the deposit and my wife arranged the mortgage, yet she insisted that I sign the deeds. I didn’t feel remotely entitled to it and explicitly told her many times. But signing was her pre-condition for continuing our relationship.

I guess she felt it would be a clear sign of commitment from me, and also put me in debt to her morally. I, naturally, did not analyse this event in terms of a long-term emotional power struggle the way a woman would. I simply noted that my infidelities had resulted in making me the co-owner of a fourstorey Georgian town house.

Figure that out.

The only reason I can give for why my wife hangs onto me is sex. She fancies me. That’s it. Within the emotional turmoil of the female mind is the primal force of sex. Though they waffle about their need for empathy and sensitivity, women are actually far more libidinous than men.

God created sex for them. He gave them a body that is one big erogenous zone, and a taste for myriad erotic nuances. Male sexuality is blunt and lumpen: no man is aroused by the thought of warm breath against his neck. [Beg to differ there....] But a woman’s body is made for sex. The female orgasm makes the male climax seem a pathetic nonevent by comparison, and is proof that women enjoy sex far more than men do.

In my early and mid-20s, I had a series of liaisons with older women (one of which developed into the marriage I’m in now.

I was then penniless, and had no status and nothing noteworthy to say.

Yet accomplished and intelligent women in their 30s and 40s happily took me to bed. I knew then that women, like men, are driven by narrow, selfish agendas, be it the desire for security, money, or a healthy young body. Having sex with those women, I’d watch them lose themselves in the animal intensity of it, becoming oblivious to my presence. I was nothing. They said they liked me because I was ‘sweet’ and ‘funny’, but those qualities would have been meaningless if I wasn’t up to scratch in the sack.

I recently had a frank chat with a female friend, and she admitted that women address a man’s qualities as though they are scanning his CV with a view to employing him. Above all, they want a man who turns them on.

Failing that they settle (in descending order) for a man’s money, his ability to entertain them, and his willingness to do the dishes.

Her words confirmed my belief that men and women are incapable of a genuine spiritual union. We’re too dissimilar even to understand each other, let alone combine in harmony, so we just grasp what we can from our relationships.

That’s why, when a woman does meet a man who flips her lid sexually, she isn’t going to let him go. Men and women are held together by biology, not by love. Love isn’t powerful enough to overcome the tremendous contradictions between us. Genetics isn’t a recipe for happiness – but then our genes don’t exist to make us happy. They exist to keep us alive.

So yes, I believe men and women do exist in different times zones in emotional terms. We find mutual satisfaction in sex, but that aside we must remain strangers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Brigadon May 21, 2012 at 00:46

ed, I think that should have been in an article :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
DruidV May 21, 2012 at 11:20

Text walls rock, for those with patience…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Brian May 26, 2012 at 10:22

Just want to thank the author for laying out the concept so clearly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
My Cunt Is Wet With Fear May 27, 2012 at 17:13

Mr Zamboni, you REALLY should have credited F. Roger Devlin with this, as it is his concept you are talking about. His original, brilliant, paper is “Sexual Utopia in Power”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23724929/Sexual-Utopia-in-Power-Devlin

YouTube audio for the reading-challenged:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMd1kf3OSuU

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
FuckYou May 27, 2012 at 20:10

What a disgusting selection of males. We get it, you hate women. Why don’t you stop whining about it and fuck off. The problem with MGTOW is that they WON’T FUCKING LEAVE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
Mark May 29, 2012 at 11:30

To FuckYou:

MGTOW did not force you to read this article. Like most women, you blame men for your choices. Perhaps Uncle Sam could legislate MGTOW off the map for you, so you would no longer be able to read their mean little articles.

Hypergamy is real, and it is still expected of men to conform in order to find a mate. Men are tried of having to bust their asses just to ensure that daddies lil girl will be able to find a worthy mate (an income larger than hers). It’s 2012; not 1952. Time for you gals to start being the providers, while us men raise the kids and sip wine with our guy friends at Panera Bread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Red0660 May 29, 2012 at 22:45

“Competition, violence, achievement, sex and money – these are very masculine ideals / values. ”

LOL ohhh so that’s why these things garner mating opportunity with women. Seems like male nature is a feminine value and ideal to the hilt. Liberate men and you will have yourself a deal you selfish hypocritical western whore. Stay away from my territory and resources…I buy pussy meat with that….on a temporary basis of course, I’d never consider women for any higher purpose, they’ve abdicated any semblance of a complimentary relationship with men. Savagery begets savagery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Abbot January 6, 2013 at 09:41
Young Man January 30, 2014 at 13:11

This post was beautiful. I am a young man trying to navigate the trenches of this doomed World. Our big cities in America can be appalling. When you actually walk through them, and observe their internals. The injustice, the squalor. We live in a modern-day dystopian environment. When I walk through the city sometimes I feel a revulsion. It is overwhelming sometimes. The sights, the sounds, the disease, the injustice. Society is twisted.
Why were women mentioned Several times in the Bible as being from beneath? As bodily agents used by demonic spirits. And Satan himself. “The Fall of Man” in the Garden of Eden. I remember numerous quotes that focused on the bad nature of women. Our forefathers were trying to warn us. Did we take heed? It seems not.
I am not religious but I can see much Evil in women. Selfishness, egomania and Vanity beyond compare. Look at the way they stare at themselves in the mirror. They will stare for hours at their reflection, and even kiss their own reflection, it is crazy. Women will have a Facebook page with 2,000 photos…of themselves. They are experts at manipulation, lying, and deception. There is no Man on Earth who can even compare with them.
Women are not like Men. They do not think like Men. Men are more mathematical, creative, and logical. More prone to indepedent thinking and introversion. In the past, Men did NOT like to showcase their bodies like Women. The masculine was intellectual, spiritual and reserved. We used to dress in long shirts and long pants. Suits. Covering the body. “Modest” with the body is the term that comes to me.
Women like to read humanities books and society magazines. Their mind is like a scattered puzzle. Add the crazy emotions to that mind. The Body is home for the Woman. Notice how they loved to flaunt their bodies in history and old paintings. Short-skirts, revealing shirts, legs showing. They love that stuff.
When girls have sleepovers they often get naked in front of each other. They touch each other. They scrutinize body parts and talk for hours, looking into each others eyes and touching and feeling. They compare their bodies and it is all so physical. The physical, the body, the flesh, the Woman. The Woman is home in the Flesh.
They are creatures of Society. They compare each other. They get together in cafes while the Men are at work and gossip. They look at themselves and the other women around them. Where does she live? What part of town? (Checking to see if it is the rich, middle, or poor part). What car does she drive? HAHAHA she only drives a Honda? What does her husband do?
They back-bite other women and compare themselves with other women. Watch out for these women. They will turn on you in a minute. There is no loyalty. Look at the skyrocketing divorce rate. Women initiate 70% of Divorce.
Other cultures in the past: Victorian England, Arab societies were constructed in ways to Prevent Hypergamy from women. Now with this Modern, twisted version of Western civilization, the preventions have been Removed. We are seeing what these women will do when unrestrained. It is scary. A woman will leave her husband of 10 years with no remorse. She will wipe him out financially AND get alimony, child-support, etc. For HER Offspring and HERSELF she is tenacious. For everyone else she doesn’t care. The “new rich beau” better be on guard. Look at her history, why wouldn’t she do the same thing over again? Given the opportunity. Watch out Men. THANK YOU for this article. It is engraved within the circuits of my mind forever. Thank you, my good man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: