Satoshi Kanazawa, who often writes on gender issues from a scientific perspective, posted an article explaining why the practice of giving children their fathers’ surnames is beneficial to children:
Marilyn vos Savant may be the most intelligent person alive in the world today, with the recorded IQ of 228, and she is a wizard when it comes to solving logical and mathematical problems in her weekly column “Ask Marilyn” in the Parade magazine. But she does get at least one biological problem wrong.
vos Savant advocates a social institution where all individuals – men and women – keep their last names for life, rather than women adopting their husband’s last name upon marriage, and where all boys inherit their last names from their fathers and all girls inherit their last names from their mothers. That is why, as an adult, she changed her last name from Mach that she was born with (vos Savant is a descendent of the physicist Ernst Mach) to her mother’s maiden name, vos Savant.
[...]
Patrilineal inheritance of family names, where children inherit their last names from the father, not from the mother, evolved as a social institution as one of the mechanisms to alleviate paternity uncertainty. Like all mammalian males, human fathers can never be completely certain of their paternity, but, unlike most mammalian males, they are asked to invest very heavily in their offspring. Therein lies the possibility of cuckoldry – unwittingly investing their precious limited resources in the genetic offspring of another man. Males of only a very few species in nature (humans, and many avian species) face the danger of cuckoldry because male parental investment among these species is high … Males of these few species – human fathers in particular – therefore need to be reasonably convinced that they are indeed the genetic fathers of their putative offspring before they would agree to invest heavily in them. Both nature and social institutions aid in such an effort.
[...]
Patrilineal inheritance of family names is another social institution that emerged to convince the fathers of their paternity, by saying (if social institutions have a vocal cord) “The baby’s really yours, because it has your last name!” … Fathers are therefore expected to invest more heavily in children who bear their last names than children who bear the mother’s last names, because they are more likely to be convinced of their paternity. As a result, ceteris paribus, children who inherit their last names from their fathers are expected to be more likely to survive and thrive than children who inherit their last names from their mothers. Like polyandry, the social institution of matrilineal inheritance of last names contains the seeds of its own extinction….
Kanazawa is right. Patriarchy is indeed best for children and societies that practice it. This is why matriarchal societies are always outcompeted, and eventually lose out to stronger, patriarchal societies. Feminism results in cultural and ethnic extinction for all those who practice it for an extended period of time.
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with the idea that the children should also get the father’s last name, but I also think the mother should adopt the father’s last name.
If the marital climate were better (divorce almost impossible to obtain, no alimony in the event of the divorce, no child support in the event of divorce either, and divorce carrying a massive stigma) I would only be willing to marry a woman who was unwilling to take my last name if she followed me alphabetically. A woman refusing to sink to my alphabetical position would be a dealbreaker.
Remember, women use far more double standards than men and have been doing even more of their use of double standards since feminism got on steroids, so men can use double standards in situations like this.
In Spain and Latin America, which have always been patriarchical, the naming convention is a little bit differet. Everyone does keep their name for the rest of their lives. Children have two last names; the first one comes from their father and the second one from the mother. They keep these names for the rest of their lives. Even when women marry the keep their names as well.
The difference comes in how women are introduced and described in society. A married woman will be introduced as Mrs. “So and So” (last names don’t change) “de” (belonging to ) “husnband’s last name”
So in essence everyone acknowledges their paternal and maternal lineage. Married women acknowledge that they “belong” to their husbands.
An example is Eva Peron, former wife of Juan Peron. She was introduced as Eva Duarte de Peron.
One of the most enjoyable and educating things about The Spearhead is the opportunity it gives to learn things one would never otherwise come across. I have thus been getting up to speed on Marilyn vos Savant (please recall that the word savant means intelligent) a woman with an IQ of 228 and thus the cleverest person on Earth. My bull-shit-ometer was thus going in to its red area and I had to find out more about Ms vos Savant, because I have long been suspicious of I.Q.Tests and Psychometric Tests generally, not to mention women full of their own self-importance. I have not been disappointed.
Vos Savant is (apparently) a distant descendent of Physicist Ernst Mach (her father is a Mach) and is also married now to Robert Jarvik who is, at least partly responsible for inventing the Artifical Heart. No wonder in changing her name she is distancing herself from two such distinguished men. Perhaps in view of what I write next that was a good idea.
Her own story however is bizarely chequered. She claims to have been some sort of child prodigy, yet not smart enough to recognise that marrying at sixteen (her first – of three – marriages) was not the cleverest idea ever. Then she goes off to University and reads Philosophy, (not, please note, Mathematics) but drops out after two years, allegedly to help in the financial side of her parents business, though one can only suspect that as Philosophy is not usually regarded as a recognised route to financial competence, that it is a case of her finding philopsophy too hard (or too boring).
She is however a columnist for Parade where she solves puzzles. She wrote a book criticising the solution provided by Andrew Wiles to Fermat’s Last Theorem and in doing so demonstrated that she did not understand Mathematical Induction, Proof by Contradiction or Imaginary Numbers. She also screwed up with the Monty Hall problem and The Two Boys problem.
Back however to the subject of IQs. Apparently the highest I.Q. you can obtain is 170, and thus her world-beating 228 is achieved on a system that does not make sense and the psychologist who came up with the 228 figure breached, in the words of Psychology Professor Alan Kaufmann ‘every imaginable rule concerning the meaning of IQs’.
She is obviously not stupid, yet like so many blessed with a Vagina, there is clearly less far substance than she would have you believe in her self-promotion to the general public.
As usual it is a case of pretentious name; pretentious person.
“Marilyn vos Savant may be the most intelligent person alive in the world today, with the recorded IQ of 228″
Yeah, right. And I can dunk like Blake Griffin.
As to naming children, I’m not sure how giving it his names gives him any sense of security that he wasn’t cuckolded. But it certainly should enhance his bond with the child. Anyway, I would never have married a woman who wouldn’t take my name. If she doesn’t want to do that, there’s not much point in getting married, IMO. She’s not “all in”, even though the institution is much much more to her benefit than the husband’s. I suppose, maybe, if she had some really established career name I might get it (very grudgingly) if she was going to bring in a lot of money, but she’d still have to convince me that she’s all in. And the kids not having my name would be a non-starter.
I have to laugh at all these guys who married women who didn’t take their last name only to have them become stay at home moms within 2 or 3 years. Yeah, she’s so independent.
Anyone crazy enought to marry should not ony insist that the wife and all children take his last name, but we should go back even further into tradition and require a dowry from her family, as follows:
Affirmative Dowry
$ 1 million cash, plus a free, fully paid
Home or apartment
Insurance Dowry
$5,000,000 in trust to pay for:
Attorneys’ fees
Alimony
Child Support
Psychologists
Health Care and other expenses
“sex support”, the analogue of child support, so the husband can got out and spend what he needs to to get it on again with miscellaneous women in a big way — what he gave up to married for to begin with.
The trust is triggered if the wife becomes “unhaaaaaaaapy” due to the “probem with no name”. It is like the converse of the deal that Tiger Woods’ dumbshit babysitter wife got.
This way, in the case of divorce it is the Man who is happy and the Wife is feels suicidal knowing that she is paying for the consequences of her own act — which seems unimaginable to her.
I had the same reaction as you, Opus, years ago when I first heard about the claim that Ms. Vos Savant’s had the highest IQ. Also, don’t people find it suspicious that her last name is “Vos Savant”? I mean, come on.
It should be noted that no IQ test has a scale that goes up to 228, so that in itself casts doubt on the claim. Usually, such claims are *estimates* based on heuristic arguments. And, Opus, you have good reason to be skeptical of IQ tests. As my area of research makes copious use of IQ tests, and other cognitive tests, it should not be a surprise that I believe that these are great psychometric tests *for what they measure*. On the other hand, I am not so naive as to believe they constitute a valid measure of what I would call intelligence. They measure what they measure, and they are great predictors of many things. But they are also quite limited.
Back to Marilyn – years ago, in grad school, I once taught a freshman level class whose purpose was critical thinking (yeah, I know, a lost cause in America). I used Vos Savant as an example of a highly improbable claim. Since IQ scores are normally distributed, with well known norms and standard deviations, one can calculate the probability that a randomly selected individual would obtain such-and such a score. If we assume that Vos Savant did indeed have an IQ of 228, and given that males have a significantly larger standard deviation of IQ, I had calculated that for every one female with an IQ of 228, there would be over 20,000 men with an IQ that high or higher. I don’t feel like looking up IQ norms right now, so I won’t reproduce the calculation.
By the way, just because she majored in philosophy, or dropped out of college, doesn’t mean she is not the smartest person in the world. Plenty of bonafide geniuses do things like that. On the other hand, those extremely bright people who do drop out of college tend to make some amazing contribution to mathematics, science, etc. – think Gates, Jobs, etc. What they don’t tend to do is hire a staff of worker bees to write a magazine column that responds to people’s puzzles. Between her lack of significant achievement, the unsubstantiated claim of the highest IQ, the fact that her arguments regarding a proof of Fermat’s last theorem was roundly hammered (and she even ended up back-pedaling on), etc., etc., I consider her to be a bright woman, perhaps a genius, (and certainly smarter than me), but definitely not the smartest person in the world – not now, and not a few decades ago when the claim was made.
We are the last of modernity’s residual dinosaurs left, still clutching at long dead straws … In hope and despair.
All prior grounds on which we once stood proud and firm are no longer there. They’ve been ever since gone well before even Rome fell to savages.
Adapt brethren adapt.
QUICKLY.
So her mother’s father’s name is more important than her husbands? 228 IQ?
I need a stiff drink.
I have spent a fair amount of time around smart (presumably high-IQ, but in absence of actual testing, who knows) people, and I will say this: having a high IQ does not necessarily translate into having a greater understanding of ALL things, and it certainly doesn’t translate into automatic wisdom.
We are all familiar with the concept of an idiot-savant, where a guy who can’t tie his own shoes can memorize Pi to 200,000 digits. Well, high IQs among “normal” people appear to work in roughly the same way. A brilliant computer programmer might not be able to remember to change the oil in his car, or he might not understand why yelling at a girl for confusing Star Wars and Star Trek would be off-putting to her. A guy might be a brilliant mathematician, but he can’t get his coffee maker to produce a drinkable cup of coffee, or get the stains out of his shirt.
Wisdom, while a harder thing to quantify, is even more elusive when it comes to high IQ people. A brilliant man may still marry a whore and be shocked when she fleeces him, or he may invest in a particularly shady business deal and get conned, or otherwise engage in a path in life that leads to his own misery and ruin.
Furthermore, character and values have NOTHING to do with IQ. Plenty of the societal solutions employed by the Nazis make perfect sense from a purely functional aspect, but are horrific from a moral perspective. Additionally, there is nothing about having a high IQ that precludes one from being a thief or a murderer. You just might end up being a particularly accomplished thief or murderer.
And, on a last note, which may apply to ol’ Marilyn, I’ve known a few very intelligent women, and with every single one of them, you can simply throw their IQ out the window as soon as their emotional state becomes agitated. If she has an IQ of 150 normally, but then gets upset at the idea that a puppy needs to be put to sleep, you can go ahead and assume that her IQ, for the duration of her emotional outburst, has dropped to about 100 or even lower. It is both amazing and frustrating to see, but quite clearly demonstrates which parts of the brain are given priority in a human female. Knowing that, I would take anything that Vos Savant says regarding sensitive issues, such as whether a woman should take a man’s name, with a grain of salt.
My uncle married a raging 70s/80s era feminist. She kept her last name and all three kids have her last name. In an irony of ironies, a few years ago she changed her last name to her mother’s maiden name because she didn’t want to endorse the “patriarchy.” Never mind that her mother’s maiden name was from her mother’s father.
The kids still have her original maiden name.
He was the main breadwinner (computer science) whereas she worked part-time in special education making peanuts. She keeps my uncle’s balls in a jar under the kitchen sink.
Watching them as I grew up showed me what NOT to do.
MVS screwed up the monty hall problem? News to me.
All of the criticisms presented by Opus are true, EXCEPT, Marylin Vos Savant actually correctly presented the Monty Hall Problem.
OT
http://jezebel.com/5987888/if-you-want-a-more-thoughtful-boyfriend-try-pegging-him?tag=genderal-interest
Ole Hugo is back and he is claiming, along with a few other quack feminist researchers, that women pegging their bfs and husbands in the social catalyst needed to destroy the ole patriarchy.
Her Monty Hall answer is correct if the host always opens a losing door and offers a switch.
Her answer to the Two Boys problem is also correct. Two children are equally likely to be FF, FM, MF, or MM. If I tell you they’re not FF, there’s a 1/3 chance they’re MM.
This is why craps players call 5+5 a “hard ten” and 4+6 an “easy ten”.
Good research. So the 228 IQ claim is a self-promoting public relations stunt.
There are lots of games played with IQ scores. For example, it’s common for IQ scores to be “gender-normed” so the mean of the distribution is defined as 100 for both sexes, giving the appearance of equal average intelligence even though average intelligence is different by sex. Having said that, it’s well understood that IQ scores for men and women have different standard deviations – there’s no way to obscure that by gender-norming without having completely different IQ scales. Two possible numbers for IQ standard deviation are 16 for men and 13.7 for women.
Moving along, normal distributions are easily understood and there are several calculators on the web which provide easy answers to normal distribution questions.
So, let’s look at that 228 IQ claim. If women have a mean IQ of 100 with 13.7 standard deviation, the probability of an individual having an IQ of 180 or higher is 0.00000000262. In a global population of 3.5 billion women there will be about 10 women with an IQ of 180 or higher. And for 190 or higher? 0.09 women – 1/10th of a woman – will have that IQ in the global population. So claiming a 228 IQ (not 227 or 229, but 228!!!) is meaningless, not to say highly improbable, proving the most intelligent woman on the planet doesn’t understand simple statistics. LOL.
@ Dave re the Two Boys Problem
What about all the different types of naturally conceived multiple births? Shouldn’t Marilyn Vos Savant have factored them into her probabilities of outcomes?
Shouldn’t she also have factored in the mother’s and the father’s biological races while she was at it? After all, if both the mother and father were Nigerian, the probability of multiple births would have been much higher, and if the mother and father were both Japanese, the probability of multiple births would have been much lower.
Feminazis, manginas and white knights: the most intellectually lazy people out there, bar none.
But then there’s another point of view. Here’s a comment on IQ – obviously from a woman – on Psychology Today. Enjoy.
Just let the burning husk of marriage, monogamy and patriarchy die already. Paternal certainty through sexual exclusivity is made obsolete by DNA testing. Sexually exclusivity was a weak solution to begin with. Finally we are free from doubt. For the first time in History we can be sure.
Save up the same amount a Western skank requires you to blow on a wedding, then spend that sum on surrogacy in a country like Ukraine (or if it’s cheaper to get ova from a White Eastern European and have them fertilized and gestated in an Indian woman, then do that).
Only this way you can be sure the kids are yours genetically and stay yours in terms of custody. Only this way you can be sure you will never be enslaved and have all your life savings liquidated and all your future income confiscated.
Once your 2-3 kids are all in school (or at least in kindergarten), get snipped, put a condom on and go fuck all the women you like. They’re not married to you, nor cohabitating with you and you can’t get them pregnant so there’s no way you can be taken to the grinder.
Better yet, expatriate to a country that is relatively patriarchal and with a relatively small government, not just to avoid the Western marriage-divorce industry, but also to rob the bloated Western plutocracies and the parasitic demographic groups (women, minorities, homosexuals…) of your income.
Only the father is essential, the removal of mother doesn’t affect kids’ outcomes, only the removal of the straight father does; if anything mothers delay the maturing of their children by one decade and ill-prepare them for the world by filling them with severely harmful lies. Another reason why mothers ill-prepare children for the world is females’ savage solipsism and their lack of ability to create an accurate model of the outside world in their heads, except for what is needed to manipulate men. Fathers raise children that are more rational, more objective, less solipsistic, more self-sufficient and autonomous, less parasitic, less toxic and manipulative, more honest, who are moral agents as opposed to moral objects, etc.
Not to mention that mothers are more likely than fathers to abuse their children physically, sexually and psychologically. By keeping the mother away you’re doing your kids a favor, and yourself a favor for a woman is at best one more mouth to feed who shits stress and drama, and at worst a psycho bitch that destroys you, your family and your children financially, emotionally and sexually and reduces you to squalor and modern slavery and condemns to your children to the trauma of a broken family and to a life of delinquency, premature promiscuity and low achievement.
MGTOW + Surrogacy, aka Single Fatherhood, reduces the chance of having your whole life destroyed to zero (provided you either don’t fuck women or you get snipped and record yourself fucking women every time so they can’t destroy you through pregnancy and child support or through false rape allegations). Marriage, with its above 50% divorce rate, is at best a coin toss. Now if I asked you whether you wanted to flip a coin, heads you pay me $50, tails I pay you $50, some of you might take me up on that. But if I told let’s flip a coin, heads I take everything you own and have earned up to this point in your life plus 18-21 years of your future earnings, tails nothing happens, you’d have to be insane to accept.
Modernity, i.e. home appliances, police forces and state monopoly of violence… have made marriage and patriarchy obsolete in the sense that women can fend for themselves (however badly, parasitically or socialistically). As soon as women could leave, they up and left, and didn’t waste a second in hesitation nor lose a second in remorse. Modernity isn’t going away and isn’t going to be uninvented. The best you can hope for is a Soviet-style collapse and even then, in post-Soviet Russia, they have 40-50% divorce rates, comparable to the West.
It’s time men realize this, get over it and move on. It’s time to stop wanting to play house -this obscene and servile fetish- and value our freedom and sovereignty more than suicidal fantasies of idealized shackling to a solipsistic, irrational, immature, selfish, materialistic, fickle, immoral person whose moral character and benevolence is entirely our projection of male qualities onto her. Why is it that women run toward their freedom but we don’t want ours even if all we have to do is just grab it?
It’s time to stop looking back and to start looking forward. It’s time to adapt and overcome. To stop being attached to a dead way of doing things, and tying our identity, our self-worth and our meaning to that way of doing things. To realize that we have been accidentally set free, that we would not have done it ourselves, and to breathe the fresh air.
Why is it that women run toward their freedom but we don’t want ours even if all we have to do is just grab it?
Fear.
Fear of being alone and disenfranchised from social circles.
Women have a support system; relatives, friends, government, etc.
Men don’t support each other.
Married men (and women) are suspicious of unattached men.
Single men compete against each other for select available females, even when they team up.
Alternative life styles are liberal speak for LGBT and heroic single mother households, the re-definition of the family. Hetero single men consciously foregoing pair bonding with a woman – are freakish, bitter and angry, perhaps even dangerous. That’s the perception and most men are afraid of society judging them as “odd” or a “loser” that could never “win” a woman permanently. He’s incomplete as a man, as though missing a limb. He’d prefer to avoid this at all costs. No risk is great enough.
George B. March 7, 2013 at 10:19
Bravo George B. Bravo.
Are you reading George B. Welmer ? His comment deserves its own thread.
Of course the really priceless thing is that even if she prefers to call herself Savant rather than Jarvik or even Mach, Savant, her Mothers married name was not the name of her Mother at birth but the name of her Maternal Grandfather… and so on to infinity. It will always be the man’s surname.
Younger men may not know we’re only one and a half generations away from a time when unmarried men over 30 were probably gay and definitely not to be trusted. And three generations away from a time when single men couldn’t find a job because employers gave priority to married men who had families to support.
It’s a cosmic joke to hear women whine about oppression when the entire culture is and always has been organized around the feminine imperative.
“Of course the really priceless thing is that even if she prefers to call herself Savant rather than Jarvik or even Mach, Savant, her Mothers married name was not the name of her Mother at birth but the name of her Maternal Grandfather… and so on to infinity. It will always be the man’s surname.”
Well actually, not entirely true. There are women who have changed their names to a completely new one; one that has no ties to anyone else in their family.
Oh and I forgot to say that in post-Soviet Russia, not only do they have Western-like divorce rates, but they also have the same draconian alimony, child support laws and de facto mother custody.
Excellent post by George B
“As to naming children, I’m not sure how giving it his names gives him any sense of security that he wasn’t cuckolded. But it certainly should enhance his bond with the child.”
Yeah, I found SK’s argument to be rather flimsy – this convention of naming seems more an effect of patriarchy than a cause.
George B’s post is a tour de force for surrogacy & MGTOW
Again excellent post
For men who want children listen to George B & get a surrogacy or expat
Women no longer want to be mother’s, or wives, at the first opportunity they got
Surrogacy is the only legal option men have if they want a family
Families are now illegal, unless you call having your home & life savings stripped from you a family …
Bradley makes the perfectly sensible point that some women give themselves new surnames. I regret to say however that that does not solve the problem for them. If I am a woman called Futrelle and I change my name to Price I still have a male surname derived from any number of men. If however I decide to avoid that by calling myself Qxpr, or Manhater, I may have a new name but it is not a recognisably a surname – more a nickname, or stage name – and such a persons daughter (you may be sure) will change her name to that of her husbands on marriage. Her son will either adopt his Father’s name or adopt a more sensible name to avoid ridicule. The problem seems to me to be intractable.
This is my proud contribution to International Woman’s Day.
“Slapping a normal distribution on human phenomena looks cute and gives nice, pat little answers, but it is fundamentally logically degenerate. I should know, I am a mathematical statistician who has done original research on these distributions.””
She/he is right, the bell curve gives you equivalent number of dunces and smarts, however in reality men are more likely to be at the right tail than at the left tail relative to women. And the tails are usually fatter than what a bell curve might predict, which in itself might be an artifact due to the less number of men at the left tail. (more of them are disabled, die after birth, perhaps even before birth)
As for vos Savant’s claim, there is a youtube video of IQ estimation of geniuses, and her claim is found to be bogus. (like many others)
Fathers are therefore expected to invest more heavily in children who bear their last names than children who bear the mother’s last names, because they are more likely to be convinced of their paternity.
As if men could be so easily fooled. More like, the social institution of paternal naming creates the social structure in which the father’s rights in the investment of his offspring are not so easily denied – not just monetary investment, but also teaching and value formation.
I also think the mother should adopt the father’s last name.
I totally agree with this in the most basic, crude manner in which women are portrayed as men’s property. It lets other men know that she is being invested in by another man.
The cultural problem with this is that being with a man doesn’t seem to bear much social responsibility among women or other men anymore. There are men (I’d argue more so given how society is more accepting of them) who see no qualms in seducing a woman away from her husbands and wives who see no problems in cheating on their husbands.
At least children with paternal names aren’t so likely to be witheld from an improptu school pick up by dad or have his authority so blatantly questioned in day to day life. Even as those rights are slowly (or quickly) eroded, the vestiges of a paternal last name gives a child some sense of identity beyond the mother and curiosity to find out its purpose.
“Bradley makes the perfectly sensible point that some women give themselves new surnames. I regret to say however that that does not solve the problem for them. If I am a woman called Futrelle and I change my name to Price I still have a male surname derived from any number of men. ”
That’s because you changed your first name, and not your surname..
Unless you mean that Futrelle and Price are surnames; in which cause it still does solve the problem, because there’s no longer a link to their immediate family anymore.
“If however I decide to avoid that by calling myself Qxpr, or Manhater, I may have a new name but it is not a recognisably a surname – more a nickname, or stage name”
What on earth do you mean by “recognizable?” Qxpr could very well be someone’s surname, and it may very well not be a stage name. Different cultures and ethnicities need to be taken into account.
Of course there are those who change their full, entire name. It’s legal in the U.S at least.
“– and such a persons daughter (you may be sure) will change her name to that of her husbands on marriage. ”
My own daughter did not. When she was 18, she changed her last name to one that no one else in our family has, and when she got married, she and her new husband made a entirely new surname instead of taking hers or his. Their kids also have this new surname.
I suspect this is slowly becoming the new trend. And I don’t mind it at all.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Listen to these blathering female swine now all of a sudden pointing belatedly to the hazards of single and happy fatherhood. That is a blissfully freefooted fatherhhod on fatherhoods own terms.
First one cries out, “but wht about the daughters to come of its practice ?”. The second one asks that there ought be greater consideration dumb and disabled men whom would do worse under a system of no holds barred freedom.
And my answer to them gents is that they go pound sand. All these considerations are with what they’ve held us spell bound, mesmerised and bonded, whilst they choese freedom and liberty for themselves.
George B above is profoundly spot on and so very right in his summary: Damnit, “they’ve indeed accidentally set us free”, but now want to force the genie back into the bottle having seen the writings on the wall.
Brontourpod
I get the feeling you don’t take this seriously enough. I was responding to Namae Nanka’s comment about the bell curve with regards to gender and how average or low IQ males are affected by the high proportion of male geniuses. The MRA is not doing average low IQ males any favors by focusing exclusively on the upper tier of males (especially if you yourself are not a member of the upper tier.)
Sucker, who cares ’bout bell curves and IQs ?
We’re free at last damn it.
FREE !
Basically a non-issue. The way feminists manage to spin this into being “owned” by the husband is just another peek into what feminism actually is. Victimhood.
@Ohdear-
You are completely ignoring a basic facet of biological psychological masculinity.
‘Freedom’ is not a state that men want, save for a few sociopaths that have never contributed anything to society.
What men want is ‘self determination’ and ‘pride’. They often blithely refer to this as ‘freedom’ when, in fact, it is only the freedom to choose what set of chains to wear. Men WANT to accept responsibility, they WANT to contribute their time and energy in a meaningful way to the growth of society. This is referred to as ‘pride’.
Even ‘society’s rebels’ tend to group into gangs, or criminal organizations, and often work hard in order to advance the gang and take pride in being ‘the most badass gang on the block’
This is not wrong. this is not evil. This, more than anything else, is what makes men happy. No man is happier than when he is supporting himself and others doing something he is truly good at, taking pride in, and getting credit for. Even your ‘free bird PUAs’ and MGTOWs are still taking pride in being part of a community where their efforts are making a difference, they are gaining praise and social acceptance, and leading others to a more equitable path.
The question is, what is this ‘freedom’ doing for us? Nothing but making us unhappy. The same way that ‘freedom’ is making women unhappy. Men and women look for completely different ways of affirming themselves within a social group, women through value, men through accomplishment.
Why do you think that MRA’s are becoming a serious movement? It is because of individual men making individual accomplishments. We do not do these things as groups, and yet each of us self-creates our role and has chosen to act with self-determination, with full knowledge and support of the yoke we have placed upon our own shoulders.
The feminist movement only exists because of men. We have built the infrastructure to allow women to pretend at self-sufficiency, we have earned the money that they require to exist, we have created the organizational structure, given them the political clout, opened the way for their airing of ‘grievances’, and created a political structure where feminism is capable of existing despite it’s inherently self-contradictory nature. At every step of the way we have taken pride in ‘helping women’ and ‘building a community’, and modern-day white knights and manginea are still taking pride in this building and accomplishment. Logic and common sense bear little reward in terms of happiness compared to building and creating and yoking yourself to a powerful construction to, in their minds, ‘do good’.
The question is, where in your ‘freedom’ do you include the biological and happiness imperative of doing good? You suggest that the ability to engage in narcissistic Nihilism is the ultimate route to happiness, despite thousands of years of recorded proof that such pointless, rootless existence provides nothing in the way of long-term happiness or fulfillment.
I reject your version of ‘Freedom’. I am a proud MRA, and I am working hard to reestablish a method by which men can choose, once again, their own servitude. Feminism, like unions, outlived it’s (minor) usefulness in adapting to technology long ago, and has been warped into a method of robbing men of their right to self-determination, the only true ‘men’s right’ and the source of our happiness.
What does this ‘freedom’ that feminism has supposedly given women and men truly have to offer us? What do you propose to replace pride?
-Keyster
“Why is it that women run toward their freedom but we don’t want ours even if all we have to do is just grab it?
Fear.”
I think so too. And can we blame them? Not really. Who wants to be alone?
I think fear of solitude might be an even stronger drive to copulate, than the possibility of having offspring. And even the idea of offspring might be born out of fear of solitude, perhaps more so than “copying ones DNA”.
Men are social beings. They can only truly be happy around others.
Naturally the first thing that springs to mind, is having a family of ones own.
But why does it have to be with a woman? Does one really have to be homosexual, to find longtime companionship with another man?
We all want a “soulmate”. Someone who understand us, and stay loyal. Who are kind and considerate. Who wait for us at home.
If you can live without sex (which many coupled straight men do anyway, because the sexual tension is gone, or because the woman is withholding it), then the above mentioned attributes can just as well be found in a man as in a woman.
It requires however, that you are willing to let another male “under your skin”, which means – open up! Less talk about football and politics, and more sincerity. Or else it will never happen.
I have a few very dear straight male friends, who I love deeply. They know it, and are ok with it. They even encourage it.
Yet, at one point or another, they end up getting engaged with girls. Even the most (conscious) anti-feminist among them, is going to be a father in April, and is getting married in August.
So I sit there on the fence, watching these girls come and take “my men” away from me, one by one (making an exaggerated point of how I feel). I also know, sitting there, that none of these girls will ever love their men as much as I do. Or as pure. I think the men know it to, because as they let their girls lead them further away from me, sometimes they let go of her and run back to the fence to check if I am still there.
And of course I am. I am their friend! For life. I want them to have wives and families, if that is what they want themselves. And when the end comes (as it will in half of the cases), I will never say “I told you so”. Instead I will keep my door unlocked for them to open, if they need to. And they increasingly do, now that some of them are two or more years into their marriages.
As for the bitches who took them away from me? A part of me is so protective, that I am willing to murder her if she hurts him.
I won`t of course. I am more clever than that. I know of something that is much more powerful. True love for my male friends. Not for their money or ability to lift my heavy stuff. But for their devotion to me.
Sounds like a bad gay science fiction novel? It is not. It is reality for me and many more.
You don`t need to be gay to let another man comfort your loneliness.
I am going to get a lot of pepper from some of you for this, but that is ok, as long as you promise to think about it for a minute
reminds me of dogma.
“My name’s jay and this is my heterosexual life-partner, silent bob.”
as a straight guy, I would think it would be awesome to find another straight guy I could relate to and live with, but the problem comes with a single deal-breaker:
There are never enough recompenses to put up with another guy’s shit.
At least with my slave I get something out of it. As an MRA, I want more men to be capable of returning to their natural role as leaders, protectors, and dominants. Not interested in a ‘partner’ or a ‘soulmate’.
I honestly think that if more men, for even a single moment, felt the power and emotional fullfillment of assuming their natural role as a dominant male over their protected female, all this crap about ‘soulmates’ and ‘equal partners’ would fall instantly on it’s ass. This pussy talk about other halves and soulmates is a desperate coping mechanism for men driven insane by social conditioning that disagrees with every natural chemical and emotional need they possess.
Brigadon
“At least with my slave I get something out of it. As an MRA, I want more men to be capable of returning to their natural role as leaders, protectors, and dominants. Not interested in a ‘partner’ or a ‘soulmate’.”
Then you are not lonely enough. Good for you! If you can cope just fine on your own, go for it!
My thoughts go to those men who have a hard time being singles, perhaps more so for the loneliness it brings, than the chance of copulating.
Men so downed of being alone that they are considering cohabitation with a woman – even if they are very aware of the traps set for them.
Other than that, I take your point!
I know it is just as uninteresting for you as a straight man to share your life with another man, as it is for me as a gay man to share my life with a woman.
I am under no illusion that straight men can turn gay if pressured far enough. Actually, it is not a dream of mine either.
No one however, can do without friends. Close friends. Someone to confide in. My guess is, that the few times a straight man really feel the need for someone to confide in, he turns to a woman in 95% of cases.
Well, my theory from above still stands. If men got a little more sincere, personal and friendly with each other, they would have yet another reason less to please women (if I am kind to you, will you listen to me and share my problem?).
It’s kinda hard to get sincere, personal, and friendly with what is, in truth, your competition.
That’s actually one of the foremost problems with women today. They are wondering why men are not interested, when, for all intents and purposes, they have thrust themselves into the role of a male competitor. I cannot have a dominant female in my life for the same reason I do not want another male in my territory… there is nothing in it for me worth putting up with the battle.
Frankly, I would like to see men return to more normal interactions with each other. Comradeship, trust, faith in each other, jocularity, interests in common, and friendly competition. Not this feminism-fostered hatred of man for man. This artificial division fostered and encouraged by feminist thought, This goddamned whiny bitchyness that sons are encouraged to show in the interests of ‘sharing their feelings’ and ‘getting in touch with their feminine’ is destroying their value as human beings.
I want a man I can trust to help me bury a body. a Man I can get drunk with and maybe fight with and know we are still buds monday morning. Someone i can argue with, play games with, and discuss computers or archery techniques to.
if I want to fuck, or dominate, or even snuggle, That’s what my slave is for. she can do all of those things. But I would be insane to try and discuss politics or my finances with her.
Sharing my innermost feelings? That’s between me and god. Or me and my favorite fishing spot. Or me and my dog, he’s a good listener. I am not lonely at all.
Brigadon
“It’s kinda hard to get sincere, personal, and friendly with what is, in truth, your competition.”
And what if the male is willing to subjugate to you?
Not all males are interested in competing. I have ranted about this subject in a number of threads here, so I wont do it here as well.
“Not this feminism-fostered hatred of man for man”
Even though men fighting each other is certainly a feministic wet dream, I don`t think we can blame white-knighting, male competition and everything else that leads to male-on-male aggression (like war), on feminism.
“I want a man I can trust to help me bury a body. a Man I can get drunk with and maybe fight with and know we are still buds monday morning. Someone i can argue with, play games with, and discuss computers or archery techniques to.”
Lol
Perfect!
“if I want to fuck, or dominate, or even snuggle, That’s what my slave is for. she can do all of those things. But I would be insane to try and discuss politics or my finances with her.”
I understand this too. You just want a traditional male-female partnership like I suspect most straight men want to have. Unfortunately, what you want you can`t have in the feminist climate of
today. Every woman is a feminist and as soon that she understands she is “dominated” by you, she will get her feminist fangs out. That`s exactly why I am trying to figure out alternative ways to battle male loneliness.
“Sharing my innermost feelings? That’s between me and god. Or me and my favorite fishing spot. Or me and my dog, he’s a good listener. I am not lonely at all.”
Telling a breathing person now and then wouldn`t kill you
But you do what is best for you. I also like that you don`t try to proclaim your views as universal to all men, but make it pretty clear this is YOUR view.
I really can`t argue with you on this, there is nothing more to say
I have the impression you are a well reflected and kind-hearted guy and I do hope you will get that male-female relationship you dream of.
{ 1 trackback }