One of the most troubling effects of applied feminist theology has been the demonization of sex differences. Naturally, this denial of biological reality didn’t make sex differences disappear, it just made them off limits for discussion. That’s ironic, because some of the most pronounced differences between men and women may be seen in the way they engage in discussion. It’s very clear here at HUS that men and women communicate very differently.
Recently I reread one of my favorite books about cross-sex communication, and despite the fact that it was written in the early 90s, I haven’t found anything that tops it. Even after four years of blogging about dating and relationships, I find John Gray’s Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus enlightening.
I’m not sure if there ever was a time when the sexes understood one another better, but most of the questions I get from female readers are an attempt to figure out what’s going on in a guy’s mind.
The best advice about men usually comes from men, but I’m happy to pass it along when it’s really good. John Gray is really good. Some of the insights seem a bit dated for today’s culture – that is, the nature of men and women has not really changed in twenty years, but some of our behaviors have. You may need to adjust here and there, but most of this is gold.
When men feel good about themselves, they are most motivated to please a woman.
The more a man’s life is in order, the more he hungers for a woman to share it with.
When a man does something to make a woman feel special, he becomes more attracted to her.
Men are attracted to women who clearly can be pleased. A man does not want to hear a woman dwell on negative feelings or problems. Women should initially share their most positive, autonomous side.
Not to be needed is a slow death for a man. He needs to feel appreciated, trusted and accepted.
Men are motivated and empowered when they feel needed. Given the opportunity to prove his potential, a man expresses his best self. Only when he feels he cannot succeed does he regress back to his old selfish ways.
But: Too much intimacy, too quickly, can cause women to become needy and men to pull away.
When a man is attracted, he gets excited because he anticipates that he can make her happy and that makes him feel really good; it brings the best of him out. The anticipation of more is very important to keep him interested. If he feels completely satisfied, then there is no distance for him to continue traveling to pursue her. Distance not only makes the heart grow fonder but gives the man the opportunity to pursue. Men always need the opportunity for more.
When women “overgive” it compromises their position, and it prevents the excitement of anticipation and romance from building.
While a man tends to question whether he wants to pursue a relationship, the woman tends to question where the relationship is going.
This may make her insecure and she will begin to pursue him. When a man stops pursuing, a woman’s task is to resist the enormous urge to find out what has happened or to do something about it. In this instance, she should stay open to his future advances, but fill her life up with friends.
The male intimacy cycle is like a rubber band. It involves getting close, pulling away, and then getting close again.
A man pulls away to fulfill his need for independence or autonomy. When he has fully separated, suddenly he will feel his need for love and intimacy again. A man automatically alternates between needing intimacy and autonomy.
When a man springs back, he picks up the relationship at whatever degree of intimacy it was when he stretched away. He doesn’t feel any need for a period of getting reacquainted again.
If a man does not have the opportunity to pull away, he never gets a chance to feel his strong desire to be close. If women insist on continuous intimacy then he will almost always be trying to escape and distance himself. He will never get a chance to feel his own passionate longing for love.
When a woman chases a man or punishes him for withdrawing, he feels incapable of fulfilling her and gives up. His fear of her anger or rejection might cause him to give up entirely.
Women need:
- caring
- understanding
- respect
- devotion
- validation
- reassurance
Men need:
- trust
- acceptance
- appreciation
- admiration
- approval
- encouragement
A man’s interest should be active.
If a man detects that a woman’s mission is to please him, he will also focus on how she can please him. If she wants to pursue him, he will happily sit back and passively receive what she wants to give. This will not make her happy. When he senses that she is unhappy, she becomes less interesting to him and the attraction lessens. A woman who is eager to please a man will find that he is pleased, but not necessarily interested.
Active interest motivates the man to action to achieve a goal, thrives on achievement and comes from a place of desire and confidence. The more risks he takes, the more invested he becomes.
The way a woman makes him feel good, (and more interested) is by creating opportunities for him to succeed in truly fulfilling her needs. Without her to please, he is a man out of work. He needs a job, needs the opportunity to succeed in a relationship with a woman. This is an enormous boost to his fulfillment in life.
A female’s interest should be receptive.
Receptive interest is motivated to create opportunities to receive, thrives in response to support, and comes from a place of preference and worthiness. A woman’s receptive interest in a man generates his active interest in her. When she reacts to his advances, he feels more connected to her. Then he is automatically more interested and motivated to get to know her.
A man gets turned on when a woman’s radiance makes him feel more like a man.
Feminine radiance embodies the three characteristics of femininity:
1. Self-assurance: An air of grace and trust, self-respect.
2. Receptivity: The ability to receive what is given and not resent getting less; ability to benefit or find good in every situation.
3. Responsiveness: A man loves a woman with a smile. He loves to feel that he can make a difference, that he can make her happy.
The wisdom of waiting to be sexually intimate is that a man’s desire has a chance to grow into the higher levels of expression.
His physical desire expands into the emotional desire to please the woman.
Having an exclusive relationship provides the foundation for lasting intimacy. A woman creates intimacy by honestly sharing more of who she is, and a man experiences increased intimacy by successfully supporting and nurturing more of who she is. As she discloses herself more, he can gradually get to know her. If he continues to be supportive as he gets to know her better, then the love he feels in his heart has a chance to grow.
When a woman becomes sexual before she is ready, she has stopped being receptive and becomes accommodating. She compromises her position. When she gives more in the relationship, she begins to expect more from the man, which makes her very unattractive. Female expectations are a turnoff for men.
The thing that surprises me most, though it makes a lot of sense, is the value to a man of pursuing and winning a woman. And the value to a woman of giving him the opportunity to do that.
We can either return to a way of relating that respects sex differences, or we can continue to ignore sex roles, asking women to be aggressors and men to be passive recipients. While I think that it’s important and helpful for women to offer encouragement and show interest to men they find attractive, both sexes will realize the greatest benefit if women do this in response to male initiative.
{ 1542 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 11 »
@SusanPJ
Yes, I did see that. Her soul may be timeless but her body isn’t. But I wished her the best of luck.
“Here’s a longer article on demographics and how the singles demographic is growing a lot and how the hispanic birthrate is dropping a lot faster than had been thought and Mexican illegal immigration is at a net zero right now so there will likely be less of the new-immigrant and higher-birthrates-of-immigrants effects to keep America at the replacement level of fertility.”
And this is a bad thing……………. how?
Why would anyone be worried about low birth rates? The planets got too many people now as it is.
“In the current age, we realize that there are environmental repurcussions to our dominating the earth and we need to move back to being in sustainable harmony with the earth while maintaining our more advanced technological advantages.”
We aren’t going to maintain our more advanced technological advantages because they are dependent on certain conditions, one of which is really cheap, concentrated energy.
Are we going to get all our power from nuclear reactors safely? Can that even be done?
The U.S. doesn’t even seem to be able to sustain its infrastructure at the moment.
#137 “Susan!”
“Ironically enough “rugged individualism” and “capitalism” are sacred cows to them.”
I don’t know anything about the manosphere but can only guess based on some of the comments here. You are absolutely right.
@ JP
Gee, wonder what they have in common.
Perhaps it’s karma that’s causing the low birth rates.
Susan: 1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him to avoid making him jealous.
Damien: #1 comes naturally to a woman only if she’s truly emotionally involved.
>>>
Yes, I addressed that in my comment # 142. Its not wise to invest 100% focus on someone who is not 100% focused on you simultaneously.
Also wrt asking for his advice, support or help. There are many men who would not want to give any of that to a woman unless they are already at the exclusive relationship level. They feel burdened and bothered by it.
Now it’s mine turn to say: France is doing just fine.
Hans,
“This is seen especially in the mindset of modernism of thinking that the subjects, people, as objective observers can coldly analyze and manipulate the disanimated object, earth and nature, for their benefit.”
Nature is not disanimate.
@ JP
No we aren’t and yes it can.
Esc, I can do 22 situps without a problem, but can’t do a single one as RA described without my feet anchored… I just roll back. Likewise, I can do a bunch of pull ups, but only a few with proper form (full extension, dead hang, palms forward, wide-grip).
@Olive
“Now it’s mine turn to say: France is doing just fine.”
+1
@JP
“The U.S. doesn’t even seem to be able to sustain its infrastructure at the moment.”
After the fall of the US (and Western civilization), I know its hard to comprehend but the rest of the world will shoulder on.
Loss of Western civ. will not send our species back to the dark ages. Even here it’ll just be shitty living.
Re: OKCupid article
Holy heck! I feel like I lost several brain cells reading that fake profile and the ensuing pathetic responses…
Reading that makes me question having any faith in humanity!
I tend to agree with the topic. There is one girl I am particularly attracted to because she’s from an under-developed Euro Country. When I first saw her I didn’t pay much attention to her. She’s cute and all, but my college has far moe attractive women. But she asked me a question, wasn’t familiar with English, and we had to speak in German(she’s not German).
For the next two weeks to come she relied on me to get her school situation worked out. And when I see her she brightens up and lets me open the door for her etc. Yeah, it makes me feel good about myself and I do see her as more attractive than what she really is.
My socio-economical power is higher than hers. That oddly makes me feel more masculine. Can’t really feel the same about the other girls. They’re from European and Asian Powerhouses. She’s going to return home for Christmas holidays. I think I’m gonna miss her more than I’ll miss the 10 perfect German girl I’ve been spending a lot of time with lately.
“Loss of Western civ. will not send our species back to the dark ages. Even here it’ll just be shitty living.”
Doomsday.
The future will be better. We’ll be physically and mentally healthier.
@Lokland
“Part of why feminism/manosphere are nuts. They work of the assumption that an even number of people want the same things.
A better system would be to allow people to pursue what they want (including hypergamy) but NOT having everyone else be responsible for the bad outcomes.”
+1
@PJ
I don’t think its gonna be some kinda catastrophic fall, just the loss of economic superiority resulting in relatively poor living conditions and life quality (which in comparison to cave men, will still be golden).
Iggles,
“Holy heck! I feel like I lost several brain cells reading that fake profile and the ensuing pathetic responses…”
Link? I’m feeling particularly masochistic today.
“Reading that makes me question having any faith in humanity!”
I’ve been nurturing suicidal ideation ever since I saw this video;
http://jezebel.com/5964440/what-do-you-do-when-a-childs-flirting-goes-from-cute-to-full+on-sexual-harassment?post=54731503
^^^One of the many reasons I’m totally ok with humans not replacing their populations over the next several decades.
@Jp.
Yes, from a demographic point of view, France is doing better than some other western European cultures or Japan (which doesn’t face the same level of immigration from other continents). That in turn however creates many other head scratching social problems. See the worrying level of the Ultra-right in the voting polls.
@Olive: France is a bit like a drug addict with the way it relies on its nuclear energy. Three mile island and Tchernobyl (and now Fukushima) were big enough eye openers for the population, who regularly protests against “more of the all nuclear” but apparently not for some of our leaders (Sarkozy was the latest best well known example ).
@mr. wavevector
Hmmm, we may be about to get into a bit of an argument, partly semantic, but not entirely. Obviously, to the extent that you have an argument it is with John Gray rather than myself. Let me start by clarifying my position on male leadership.
1. I reject any notion that my husband has God-given or other formal authority over me, or that I am required to accept him as my leader. I view my marriage as egalitarian, but counter to the claims of Dalrockolytes, who claim that women always dominate in egalitarian marriages, the edge goes to my husband in ours.
2. I have described that I believe this is a natural outgrowth of our relationship and choices over the years, including his being the sole breadwinner. If I earned half the household income, I imagine that I would not just sit back and let him rule, even about financial decisions.
3. I do not believe that our dynamic is the only one that happy couples have, or that he is entitled to make decisions without my input or agreement. I have also said that there are some areas where Mr. HUS defers to me – most notably in the area of parenting.
4. I consider myself a strong and independent person, and therefore that is reflected in my marriage as well. These qualities are ones that my husband appreciates, and they do not mean that I am entitled or difficult to live with.
If I led you to imagine that I was a female of the Mrs. Dalrock variety, I am eager to disabuse you of that notion immediately. I do not accept that a woman should “know her place.”
Re John Gray’s analysis of the differences between the sexes, I don’t think he is saying that men live to serve women or be subordinate to them in any way. I think he is saying that relating to women is essential to man’s nature – indeed his reason for existing (and the same can be said of women – we exist to reproduce).
Gray says that men need:
trust
acceptance
appreciation
admiration
approval
encouragement
– and that women are in a position to amply provide these to the men they love. He does not say that men need to control women or even to lead them.
I think you overreach here. The way a man knows that a woman considers him “up” is that she is receptive to his interest and potential commitment. The components of social status are dominance and prestige, and women value the latter more than the former. A man with prestige is well aware of his MV, and presumably uses it to attract a woman of even higher SMV than he could get without it.
Of course, the female desire for male dominance is very real, though on a spectrum. I would venture to say that among happily married couples, the percentage of women who are deferential and submissive is quite low. Again, I would not describe myself as such, nor would Mr. HUS, nor would he wish me to be.
Like I said, perhaps this is a matter of semantics, or perhaps it’s about the relative weight of power within relationships. I think that most successful relationships today are in the 40-60 egalitarian range. Obviously, relationships in the long tails – abusive wives on one end and abusive husbands on the other, produce very dysfunctional ways of relating.
@Damien
“France is a bit like a drug addict with the way it relies on its nuclear energy. Three mile island and Tchernobyl (and now Fukushima)”
Three incidents over a span of 70ish (not sure on the exact history) is hardly cause for concern.
Assuming we can just make sure that the tech. is not used by idiots and isn’t built in dangerous places theres no real need for concern.
Three mile and Fuk. were scary but so is Paranormal Activity. Maybe a tad more expensive.
Beyond that, Fuk. has spurred on new guidelines for reactors which are actually safer than the previous versions. (Which were already pretty damn safe.)
@ SayWhaat:
+1
I’ve noticed this dynamic with my boyfriend as well. When we spend *too* many days together (say a week or week and a half) continuously it throws us off.
This article shed some light on this and helped me not to take him need time apart personally:
http://www.thefemininewoman.com/2011/10/why-men-pull-away-and-how-to-deal-with-it/
@JP
Yes, I realize that there are legal immigrants, so you could try to have more young people immigrate legally. But these people are not going to have as high of fertility as previous immigrants did.
That is interesting that France has a slight uptick in fertility rates, starting in the mid 90′s, likely due to higher-fertility-rate immigrants. The US also had an uptick in the mid 80s that lasted until the great Recession, partly helped by the influx of higher-fertilility-rate immigrants. http://www.prb.org/images12/us-fertility-figure1.gif
It will be interesting to see if birth rates continue to fall in Asia and Africa as is expected. Already it has fallen to 2.27 in Latin America as of this article a year ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fertility-rates-plunging-across-latin-america/2011/12/29/gIQAmRWQPP_graphic.html
@JP
I agree that cheap energy is required for modernity (and the economic equality for women that depends on machines/technology to remove the physical strength divide).
I am optimistic that we will continue to have relatively cheap energy. The shale oil and gas revolution have and will provide enough fuel until we can invent cheaper solar and storage and also build much more nuclear.
Thorium reactors are being slowly developed. There is 3x as much thorium as uranium and it doesn’t make much waste, is not really weaponizable, and is not subject too meltdowns:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/
Susan, I was thinking of your post on emotional escalation and how it somewhat contradicts this post, at least on the surface. Maybe you could link to that post at the end of this one so people don’t get the idea that you’re advocating total passivity.
It’s also worth noting that both the man and the woman should have the maturity and healthy mental outlook to sustain a healthy, respectful and good relationship. If the woman does too much for a man who is not ready, he’s going to be overwhelmed. Thus his desire for autonomy.
Also, in your story, moving in together after a week is a bit much! When I look back at the beginning with my husband, I was actually very reluctant to move in with him, and it took a lot of persuasion on his part. I am not advocating the “overly eager” tactic for the woman. She should negotiate her desires as well.
Sigh. I’m going to be verbally accosted for this, but I must caution everyone who thinks that there are too many people that they should reconsider.
Seriously.
First of all, you have no idea what the carrying capacity of the earth is. No one does. Check the numbers – most of the planet – BY FAR – is sparsely populated. If you live anywhere on the east coast of the the US or in most of the west coast, you should think that most of the inhabitable part of the world has a population density much more like Arizona or New Mexico, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It’s not like NYC, LA, or anywhere close to that.
Second, most of our economic structures have as an unspoken assumption the necessity of a stable or increasing population. Think Social Security. What you don’t want to know is that so does much of culture and civilization. On every scale at every time in history, a decreasing population is a sign of death and decay, not a sign of life and prosperity.
I can’t emphasize enough that the “Population Bomb” ideas of the ’60s were nothing more than Malthusian propaganda. It always was bogus and it always was propaganda at the service of the few who thought of themselves as the enlightened elite.
There are far bigger things to worry about than over population.
Well, I know some happy couples that started out this way. One woman I know who just got engaged basically stared at her husband in a bar for 10 minutes without blinking until he came over. He may have approached, but she was reeling him in.
The way it can work really well is if the guy is super attracted but intimidated. Then he’ll be overjoyed to get the number and they’re off to a great start. I think that women will have to judge this based on individual circumstances, and look for signs in the relationship that he is quite invested. In this SMP, I do think that more female initiative is a good thing.
“It will be interesting to see if birth rates continue to fall in Asia and Africa as is expected. Already it has fallen to 2.27 in Latin America as of this article a year ago.”
What about India?
“India is projected to overtake China as the world’s most populous nation by 2030. India’s population growth has raised concerns that it would lead to widespread unemployment and political instability.[57][58] Note that these projections make assumptions about future fertility and death rates which may not turn out to be correct in the event.
Source:[59]
2020: 1,326,093,000
2030: 1,460,743,000
2040: 1,571,715,000
2050: 1,656,554,000″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
This has to be the most individualistic time in history – does any other time come close?
The entire population issue is tied into agriculture which it tied into cheap energy/pollution.
@SayWhaat
That’s a great suggestion. Women need to be able to enjoy that time off too – or they’re going to be unhappy every time a guy does it. My husband doesn’t do a lot of traveling, but when he does he’s usually gone for 4 nights or so. I hate the thought of that, but then I line up things that are harder to do when he’s home. I have my focus groups over, go out to dinner with friends, have girl time with my daughter, etc. It makes the time go much faster. I also stay up a lot later and let the dog sleep in the bed, my favorite.
I sympathize, but no one has cracked the code on this for Wordpress! Blogs on Blogger offer a preview function, but every plugin I’ve tried to use slows down the site noticeably. To be fair, the comment load here is heavy, and that’s a factor.
@Susan:
“I view my marriage as egalitarian, but counter to the claims of Dalrockolytes, who claim that women always dominate in egalitarian marriages, the edge goes to my husband in ours. ”
If I follow Mr wv train of thoughts correctly, then you essentially agree with him.
@Damien
It’s true, those steps really apply when a woman wants to make a man “hers.” If she does, she needs to let him know. That feels very risky for women, because if the guy doesn’t feel the same way, they get the rejection. My argument has been that it’s only fair, since men must escalate sexually and also risk rejection. And of course, most of the time, men must risk rejection to even approach a woman.
I have advised women that if they find a guy attractive and want him to approach, the go-to move is a minimum of 3 seconds of eye contact with a smile. Look away, then repeat. If he doesn’t approach after two-four cycles of this, he is not attracted (or available).
@Susan!PJ
Perceived as inanimate.
Plain Jane, stop using my name, it’s confusing me in the replies.
One word: Pilates.
@Susan:
“This has to be the most individualistic time in history – does any other time come close?”
Individualism is one of the primary cultural products of Western civilization.
The point is that cultures/civilizations ossify, slowly decline, and are ultimately overrun by warbands/migrations.
You can use the population of Rome, the city, as a proxy for the rise and fall of Classical Civilization.
Note that the population peaks then falls during the imperial period.
350 BC 30,000.
270 BC 100,000.
100 BC >500,000.
44 BC 1,000,000.
100 1,650,000.
300 1,200,000.
400 1,100,000.
450 80,000.
500 50,000.
752 40,000.
“When a man does something to make a woman feel special, he becomes more attracted to her.”
There has to be a starting feeling. That is, he needs to feel that she is special from the start or what is the point of using his efforts to build on that?
“When women “overgive” it compromises their position, and it prevents the excitement of anticipation and romance from building.”
When a woman “overgives” over and over to prior men that’s a near sure fire way for a man to torpedo his desire to make her feel “special.” What is there to salvage? Certainly, John Gray never mentioned that. Imagine if he did?
I don’t think we’re far apart, but his constant linking to Dalrock has me a bit worried…
@JP
Should we blame Ayn Rand?
@Abbot
Agreed, if he’s not attracted to begin with she’s just a PITA, lol.
You have an amazing ability to turn every comment to the topic of female promiscuity!
@Susan:
“Should we blame Ayn Rand?”
For being a third-rate novelist pretending to be a first-rate philosopher?
The most recent iteration of individualism (generally the stupid kind) is mostly a product of consumer capitalism (there’s no human problem that can’t be solved by buying lots of electronics and tanzanite jewelry from QVC) coupled with a massive financial bubble (a house is an asset, particularly when you only make $30,000 a year, but have a $700,000 liar loan).
@Susan:
Forgive my ignorance, but who is Dalrock? Some kind of polished modern days male supremacist?
“I have advised women that if they find a guy attractive and want him to approach, the go-to move is a minimum of 3 seconds of eye contact with a smile. Look away, then repeat. If he doesn’t approach after two-four cycles of this, he is not attracted.”
You know it’s funny. I’ve talked to many women about that. And their answer varies as much as their personalities, but in essence most of them told me they were doing it that way. And that is what I more or less always experienced in public places with women who showed interest. Although 3 seconds already seems to be a long time, at least at the beginning. As for the smile……..Nobody can teach that. In the end, even with two complete strangers, it’s always about natural, sensuouslly instinctive reaction to one another without yet knowing each other. And of course, real women always know better than men on that one.
Hhmmmmm. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged 3 times cover to cover, and saw both of the movies.
Maybe Ayn Rand isn’t the problem
“You have an amazing ability to turn every comment to the topic of female promiscuity!”
Prior to 40 years ago, the dynamic between women and men as later described by Gray worked as he states. Where and how does the hook up culture fit in? The dynamic is contaminated. Its compromised. How can a man’s feeling’s in 2012 be like the much luckier man of say 1967?
Damien,
What Lokland said. Also, I’ve said this already, but I’ll say it again: I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island. I hadn’t been born when the scare happened, but my dad was living with my great grandparents, who literally lived in TMI’s backyard, and he’d decided to go for a run lol. The man is still living.
I’m too lazy to find the stats, but I once learned that far more people die in coal plant accidents than they do in nuclear accidents. Just a thought.
Abbot’s railing about female promiscuity is great because all of these arguments can be so easily applied to promiscuity.
It’s an important part of arguing, IMO, that people automatically try to dismiss because “they aren’t the same.” Without bothering to say why they aren’t the same.
Related to this:
One of my friends had to take a sexual harassment course for his college. The college made damn sure that VERBAL and SPECIFIC consent must be required before EVERY sex act, or else the guy is a rapist.
And I mean the guy, because in every situation the aggressor was a guy.
With hilarious consequences.
In one example, Fred was pressuring Sue into sex. Sue didn’t want to have actual sex, so she just started blowing him instead. Fred then decided to take Sue and put her on the bed, take off her panties, and have sex with her. At no point did Sue say no, at all, or indicate in any other she didn’t want to have sex.
Fred absolutely is a rapist, because agreeing to one sex act does not mean agreeing to another sex act. Fred should have asked Sue if she wanted to have sex first, because just because she was giving him a blowjob doesn’t mean she wanted to have sex with him.
My thought is, just because Fred was asking Sue for sex, does not mean he consented to Sue giving him a blowjob. Agreeing to one sex act does not mean agreeing to another sex act, after all.
@Lokland: “Assuming we can just make sure that the tech. is not used by idiots and isn’t built in dangerous places theres no real need for concern.”
Assuming, yes, but the reality is otherwise. TEPCO are no fools, but irresponsible people. The problem is not “the span of time”. When one accident happens, its side effects lasts many more years than that “span of time”. There have been many nuclear incidents in France kept under the rug, guess why? But anyway, let’s not start into an ecological debate. The focus here is on men/women approaches, differences, etc.
@Olive:
“I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island. I hadn’t been born when the scare happened, but my dad was living with my great grandparents, who literally lived in TMI’s backyard, and he’d decided to go for a run lol. The man is still living.”
West Shore or East Shore?
JP,
How do you mean?
@Olive: “I’m too lazy to find the stats, but I once learned that far more people die in coal plant accidents than they do in nuclear accidents. Just a thought.”
Agreed, but you could also say that more people die from car crashes than from smoking. It goes round and round that way.
Anyway, a thought on men/women?
@Olive:
“I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island.”
West Shore or East Shore (of the Susquehanna River).
Damien,
Not a good comparison. We’re not discussing whether smoking is a suitable substitute for driving. This is a discussion about finding energy sources, and there are a lot of really great benefits to nuclear (uranium is plentiful–by the way, HanSolo, interesting stuff on thorium!–and nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases). Your argument is that nuclear is dangerous; I’m saying that, relatively speaking, it’s not as dangerous as it’s made out to be by the media (I once had to explain to some fairly ignorant environmentalists that the smoke stuff coming out of nuclear plants is, in fact, steam!).
? Something specific you’d like to discuss?
If France continues to avoid panic and use nuclear power on a large scale, they are going to have a real advantage over other European countries. Germany, in particular, is not going to find it very feasible to run an advanced industrial economy on wind and solar, nor are they going to be very happy being dependent on natural gas imports from Russia and other points East. I expect that they will be a major destination for U.S. exports of liquified natural gas; however, the liquification & transportation process adds **a lot** of cost to the U.S. price.
JP,
Oh, sorry. East.
One more point on energy: if today’s social/political climate had existed when electricity was introduced, we probably never would have had widespread electrification.
Indeed, Thomas Edison used extremely sleazy tactics attempting to inspire public fear of alternating current to protect his direct-current investments, even going so far as to sponsor the electric chair as a replacement for hanging and suggesting that the process should be called “Westinghousing” in “honor” of his AC-based competitor, George Westinghouse.
If today’s fearful climate had existed then, he probably would have gotten away with it.
@Olive:
“Something specific you’d like to discuss?”
Something related to the original post, and sticking with the general disscussion on the issue. Not more.
I actually got to experience Three Mile Island, since I was alive and living in South Central PA at the time (West Shore). I think it was a little more than 10 miles away.
I wasn’t allowed to go play outside for a few days.
It wasn’t a particularly bad nuclear accident, all things considered. Mostly just scared a lot of people who thought they were all going to die.
@Clarence
Now, I thought I was very clear about what I said, which goes beyond the snippet you seem to be misinterpreting as a lack of awareness:
If it wasn’t clear, the point is that feminism has ceased to be useful for wider society in many ways, and is now extremely counterproductive for both genders (yes, that’s a huge understatement, but do we really need to get into that?). One might even argue that what many feminists are pushing for in the political arenas isn’t feminism as it was originally intended at all, because it’s not about equality for women, it’s about privileges for women at the expense of everyone else. I didn’t see the need to get into detail about all of that because it’s been discussed by our host at really great length already.
@pj
teh manosphere isn’t so much about individualism, as saying that if the deal is crap walk away from it.
also, if a man isn’t working for his own interests (wife’n'kidz) then why should he work beyond what he needs? to pay tax to support single moms?
that is where the man-boys are coming from…why man up just to be taxed to pay for a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten?
for every action there is a reaction. for every change in the incentives there is a change in the efforts made. misandry isn’t unfortunate, it’s going to be catastrophic, start looking after da menz, or tgey won’t be there to look after you…
happy days, we thrashed the kiwis at rugby and I saw it in the pub. in more ways than one, good night y’all
@ ADBG
Yup. They raped each other.
Susan
“Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.
Is there no one who will stand up to this PC nonsense”
The powers that be have decreed. It’s a career-killer to mention difficulties such as ten percent of women aboard ship get pregnant and have to be pulled out, to be replaced by some guy jerked out of his other assignment and shoved in without having a chance to meld with the team. You can’t say the reason the platoon didn’t make its objective in a manuver is because the women couldn’t keep up.
You will recall that, after the Ft. Hood shooting, Gen. Casey said that he hoped this wouldn’t damage diversity “which is our strength”. Means if you see some guy with appalling professional performance and demonstrated Islamic nutcasery, the general doesn’t want to hear about it. Message received, general, sir.
There was a report that nine officers were going to be investigated–certain career killer and possible judicial action–for failing to stop Hasan’s greased slide through the Army to Ft. Hood. Those claiming to be connected say the reason they didn’t downcheck the guy on efficiency reports or put letters in his file or reprimand him or whatever their position would suggest say that the officers were convinced they’d be accused of Islamophobia. It’s one thing to show the moral courage to get something done, but in this case, it would mean they get accused and Hasan is forever Tefloned because of having been persecuted due to his religion. IOW, sacrifice for nothing.
@JP
Fertility rate in India is now 2.6/woman, having dropped from nearly 6 in 1960
http://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:IND&dl=en&hl=en&q=india+fertility+rate
It has reached 2.1/woman in 14/35 states.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-12/india/29764186_1_total-fertility-rate-population-day-population-conference
They have the goal of 2.1 nationwide by 2017 (though it may take longer)
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-20/india/33286864_1_imr-infant-mortality-tfr
“Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.”
Why would any woman want to serve in the army in the first place? I don’t think this is “natural”. In my view, those who serve in there are quite confused or have a personally troubled psychological agenda. My own experience of the army was the most extreme real life example of what machism and or male bonding looks like at its worst when all put together: Schoolboys doing fart contests and calling women “pussies and whores”. Good luck for her if that’s the environement she wants to work in…
JP,
Interesting! My great-grandparents lived on a farm in Dauphin County, probably less than half a mile away from TMI. I remember going to their house as a little kid and marveling at those lovely towers.
Damien,
*Shrugs* okay. I haven’t felt a burning desire to comment on the post but if I do I’ll let ya know.
I recall a Senate hearing about TMI. Turns out that, in the following forty years, in the fallout pattern, 40,000 cancers were expected. Adding in the TMI radiation, there was a fifty percent chance of one more.
But there was plenty of room for panic and posturing.
@Damien
More like a disgruntled, disheveled holdover from the old days.
You’re right, 3 seconds is a long time! But that’s why it’s effective – no confusion about intent with that long a gaze. I actually read somewhere that 3 seconds is the threshold for sexual attraction.
I think you make a good point about the natural chemistry that happens between strangers. It isn’t common, but when it happens across a room it’s powerful.
Joe, re: population
Its not so much population that is the sole problem, but the ever increasing consumption needs of the population. Finite resources!
Just1z,
“also, if a man isn’t working for his own interests (wife’n’kidz) then why should he work beyond what he needs? to pay tax to support single moms?
…that is where the man-boys are coming from…why man up just to be taxed to pay for a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten?”
We ALL pay taxes, unless we are part of the elite 1%.
“a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten”
Bullshit. They don’t know how good they got it here. Spoiled brats.
[Susan, I changed my moniker for you]
Mr. Wavevector,
“The essential point that is missing is that men want something in return for all this that they give, and that thing is authority. They want a woman who will voluntarily grant him some authority over her in the relationship and accept him as her leader.”
It would be more accurate to say that this is what YOU want out of a woman in a relationship, not all men or men in general.
Susan Walsh December 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm
@SayWhaat
I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back.
That’s a great suggestion. Women need to be able to enjoy that time off too – or they’re going to be unhappy every time a guy does it.
—–
One has to be careful though that the availability isn’t exclusively on his terms just when its convenient for him and the relationship becomes all about him and his mood swings.
@Susan: “A disgruntled, disheveled holdover from the old days.”
Ha ha, Looks like it’s an international phenomenom then…
“I actually read somewhere that 3 seconds is the threshold for sexual attraction.”
Well I don’t know about numbers. All I know is that the “quality” and the “intensity” of the sparkling light that shines in a woman’s eye in a public place is all that matters. She can do it in the glimpse of an eye, pretending not to be looking at all or gazing for 5 seconds. A woman is always magical when her intent is coloured with natural infatuation. We all should instinctively sense this (men women).
Damien,
“Well I don’t know about numbers. All I know is that the “quality” and the “intensity” of the sparkling light that shines in a woman’s eye in a public place is all that matters. She can do it in the glimpse of an eye, pretending not to be looking at all or gazing for 5 seconds. A woman is always magical when her intent is coloured with natural infatuation. We all should instinctively sense this (men women).”
An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……
We all know that men don’t find women they are not attracted to as “magical” no matter how intentful her natural infatuation.
Google Translate.
My religion forbids me from googling :p
@PJ
“An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”
Absolutely not. It’s all about charm. Beauty doesn’t necessarily comes along with charm. Period.
@PJ
“An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”
I know a 60 year old woman. Her presence is enchanting.
Would not bang.
Femininity makes any woman’s presence far more enjoyable. Even if they’re not on the menu.
Ie. Theres more to being magical than tits. Thats kinda the difference actually. a hot girl is tits without magic, a magical girl is feminine. A girl who strikes me as GF potential has both (and I think upwards of 80% of women are hot).
Damien Vulaume December 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm
@PJ
“An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”
Absolutely not. It’s all about charm. Beauty doesn’t necessarily comes along with charm. Period.
———————
Damien, bless your sweet little heart. However that flies in the face of EVERYTHING men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads for, like, ever.
Case in point…..
“I know a 60 year old woman. Her presence is enchanting.
Would not bang. ”
Exactly.
Now let’s get back to the regularly scheduled program of you guys telling us how important youth and physical fitness are.
@Susan
Post #169 is terrific!
Sue: “One word: Pilates.”
Forget that, all I need is youtube videos on form. I thought my core was good, as I can do a 3 minute plank, but this is news to me. I didn’t even know they were possible! Well, I have a new project.
Regarding comment #169
“2. I have described that I believe this is a natural outgrowth of our relationship and choices over the years, including his being the sole breadwinner. If I earned half the household income, I imagine that I would not just sit back and let him rule, even about financial decisions.”
Susan, whether s/he earns half, whole, or not a single cent, a spouse, either spouse, should not let the other “rule” in any area – particularly not the financial one when not only BOTH spouses are dependent on it, but their children as well.
A partnership means just that – a partnership.
“If I led you to imagine that I was a female of the Mrs. Dalrock variety, I am eager to disabuse you of that notion immediately. I do not accept that a woman should “know her place.” ”
Mr. Wavevector thinks this is a “dominionist” type conservative Christian blog?! Entitled “Hooking Up Smart” – really?!?! LOL!
“Re John Gray’s analysis of the differences between the sexes, I don’t think he is saying that men live to serve women or be subordinate to them in any way.”
Service does not mean subordination. Of course partners are supposed to serve each other.
There is one very happily married man with several children on youtube who gives out marriage and relationship advice and he says the purpose of “manhood” is in fact to serve “womanhood” because women bring forth humans and its mens’ duty to serve women in that function.
I’m sure the Manosphere would call this (very handsome in fact) man a pussy whipped beta who is setting himself up for cuckholdry but he claims he and his wife have never had an argument in all of their 11 years of marriage.
@PJ:
“Damien, bless your sweet little heart. However that flies in the face of EVERYTHING men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads for, like, ever.”
And bless your “sweet little heart” as well.
Although I don’t think mine is. I’m not in the naive sphere of love anymore, but into reality.
Forget about the “men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads..”. Those same guys you’re talking about are reasoning like you…
Why don’t you try another culture, as long as you don’t carry your own problems with yourself along the way?… I’m saying this gently.
@Hari
Yes, but nothing on this planet is so finite that we’re in danger of running out.
Nothing. Paul Erlich’s bet was no gamble for Julian Simon for one reason – Erlich never misunderstood that the amount of any resource is independent of availability. He did not account for the fact that availability of resources always grows, because of (ta – da!) people. We will leave this planet long before we run out of whatever it is you think you need.
However, the only truly limited resource is human brains. We need more, not less. In a civilized universe, attempts to decrease the population would be considered a crime against humanity.
AND (to bring this back to the topic at hand) we would be very alarmed at the idea that men and women are getting married later and having children later still, if only because of the associated lower fertility rates. That’s already wreaking havoc in Europe and Japan.
I am NOT saying every teenage girl should go out there and have a kid ASAP. No one is. We don’t encourage having children too early primarily because it’s not good for the children and the family unit. Society considers the needs of the mother, but only secondarily.
As a society we should still encourage having children and not encourage putting family creation off indefinitely.
@Damien 122
I too believe that mutual respect and an equal commitment to the relationship is the type of equality required in a relationship. Everything else is negotiable.
” I’m not in the naive sphere of love anymore, but into reality.”
The reality is that if a man is not attracted to a woman, her “intent coloured with natural infatuation” will not inspire him to pursue her.
See Lokland’s comment at 224 regarding the “charming and feminine” 60 year old woman.
@Mr wv:
“I too believe that mutual respect and an equal commitment to the relationship is the type of equality required in a relationship. Everything else is negotiable.”
I don’t know if ‘negotiable” is the right word, but I know what you mean.
#234. PJ or whatever you want to be called: “The reality is that if a man is not attracted to a woman, her “intent coloured with natural infatuation” will not inspire him to pursue her.”
And the same the other way around. It’s in the end a chess game that never cheats…
“The reality is that if a man is not attracted to a woman, her “intent coloured with natural infatuation” will not inspire him to pursue her.”
Damien: ” And the same the other way around. ”
—
Of course.
I’m not the one arguing that an “intent coloured with natural infatuation” would make me feel any kind of way about a man that I’m not physically attracted to first.
@ Susan #169
Of course. That is why I emphasized that any authority that a woman grants her husband is voluntary. It should not be coerced by social mores nor religious edict. It is not an entitlement that a man can demand. It is something that a woman can offer a man, if she chooses, because she loves him and trusts him. Whether you feel that way towards your husband is between you and him.
I think the important factor is this: do you want to feel that he takes care of you? If you don’t, then there is no reason for you to grant him leadership. But if you do want to feel taken care of, then granting him leadership is a good way to secure that.
There is a fundamental aspect of social interactions in many social animals that couples status with care. Those who wish for care from others grant them status. Those who are granted status assume the responsibility for care. If you are strong and independent and don’t need a man, then you have no need to grant him a leadership status. But if you want the man to care for you and provide for you, then granting him leadership status is a good way to secure the investment that you desire.
And you will notice my comment to the same effect – that many couples pursue an egalitarian relationship, some of them with success.
A strong and independent person who is entirely financially dependent on her spouse? What type of hubris is that? You would be better off acknowledging that you are indeed dependent on your husband. As he is on you for other reasons, no doubt. The strength of a couple is in its mutual interdependence, not in the independence of its individual members. As it is, you belittle his contribution to the relationship, while claiming to be that which you are not.
As for Dalrock, I was linking to him as an example of how your post may be interpreted, not as a model of how gender relations should be construed .
So the way a woman acknowledges a man’s superior position is by things that benefit her personally, rather than anything that may benefit him? That she will do him the favor of letting him do her a favor? Are women really that exploitative?
Susan, I have no idea from this dialog what benefits your husband receives from supporting you, nor do I have any idea what benefit any man would receive in a committed relationship. Please elaborate.
Susan: The way a man knows that a woman considers him “up” is that she is receptive to his interest and potential commitment.
Mr. Wavevector: So the way a woman acknowledges a man’s superior position
Me: I believe what Susan meant by “up” is that the woman considers him the best of all her options, not that she considers him “superior” to her.
Mr. Wavevector: …. is by things that benefit her personally, rather than anything that may benefit him?
Me: He obviously sees a benefit in it too or he wouldn’t be pursuing her or offering up his commitment, would he?
Mr. Wavevector: Are women really that exploitative?
Me: Possibly. But in this context there is no exploitation. Its 2 individuals entering into a mutually agreed upon committed relationship.
Mr. Wavevector: Susan, I have no idea from this dialog what benefits your husband receives from supporting you, nor do I have any idea what benefit any man would receive in a committed relationship. Please elaborate.
Me: The benefits that humans receive by entering into voluntary, mutually agreed upon committed relationships with other humans are varied. Some of them are;
1. Companionship
2. Affection
3. Intimacy
4. Sexual activity and satisfaction
5. Hearth
6. Home
7. Children and family (if they want that)
8. The sharing of financial burdens
9. The sharing of tough times in life like the death of a parent
10. The sharing of life’s joys and someone to create those joys with
11. Someone to “have your back”
No, the general understanding of hypergamy is that the woman marries a man of superior social status – superior to her own status, specifically.
There are indeed foolish men who pursue relationships with women without clear benefit to themselves. But any man who wishes to find a good mate should choose one who is willing to make the benefits to him clear, rather one that indulges in the solipsistic female self-interest that Susan describes.
The benefits of a committed relationship that you describe are ultimately dependent on having a wife that will have the man’s interest in mind, rather than defending her status as a “strong and independent woman”. It is this lack of awareness of the man’s interest that I am criticizing in Susan’s response.
“rather one that indulges in the solipsistic female self-interest that Susan describes”
You’re new here so you missed the comments some weeks back where I laid down the gauntlet on the Manosphere’s incorrect use of the word “solipsistic”.
“No, the general understanding of hypergamy is that the woman marries a man of superior social status – superior to her own status, specifically.”
Susan didn’t marry a man of higher social status than herself.
@Just1Z
Good article…
“rather than expecting women to adjust themselves to the environment.”
I’d like to see this. If you’re coming to somebody else’s place, you should respect how they do things.
“If a woman truly loves you, she will fight to her last breath with utmost courage, for you.”
http://youtu.be/K4ftQfqqt7k
@INTJ
“Dude that is freaking pathetic. But then again most women can’t even do a pull-up…”
Guilty as charged.
@Richard Aubrey
I can’t cheer women in combat any more. (Disclaimer: That doesn’t mean I want them dead!)
@mr. wavevector
This post made perfect sense, as did the later ones. I’m saving it!
@Damien Vulaume
“See the worrying level of the Ultra-right in the voting polls.”
I’m going to have to check this out further. I knew about the headscarf debate but I got lazy.
“Why would any woman want to serve in the army in the first place? I don’t think this is “natural”. In my view, those who serve in there are quite confused or have a personally troubled psychological agenda.”
When I was in middle school I wanted to be a drill sergeant so I could yell at people. But my mother told me I’d have to get up very early and I gave up. XD
I have a slightly OT question about men and women relating: I was reading Robert Greene’s “Art of Seduction” (I was curious!) and found a section on The Dandy… Since a first-world problem is feminized men and women acting too much like men, would this tactic be very effective nowadays?
All right, two OT questions. Does the mail Napoleon sent Josephine count as supplication? Because… do want. *flee*
@Sai:
“When I was in middle school I wanted to be a drill sergeant so I could yell at people.”
Sounds like you got off to a good start in being an attractive woman…
@Sai
I just wanted to be a (mostly) benign global ruler. the shit that I could sort out… *sigh*
you could be a senior henchperson if you want?
as everyone must clearly be happy under my glorious, patriarchal rule, you could be in charge of beating the unsmiling ones till they showed how happy they were…
usual benefits package. apartments in moonbase and volcano HQ. as senior management you would not need to wear an opaque visor
whaddayereckon?
hmmm
best make the visors one way transparent rather than flat out opaque. else the accident rate would be through the roof along with the resultant medical costs. this global domination stuff is trickier than one might suppose.
@ PJ:
I gotta say, I’m with Plain Jane on this one. On the whole men seem to project positive qualities onto women they find attractive – whether there’s any basis for it in reality or not!
Case in point, the nerd in high school who’s
infatuatedin love with the most popular girl in school. She can be super bitchy and he won’t see it. Instead he’ll be fixated on how he would treat her better than her jerk, varsity boyfriend. (Of course not seeing that she’s turned on by the jock boyfriend’s dominance..) He will ignore his nerdy female friend who thinks he’s amazing because he views his SMV counterpart as “homely”.In college and elsewhere I’ve seen a lot of good-hearted dudes chasing, dating, and marrying bitchy women. This is not just high school phenomenon!
I am utterly indifferent to what you consider “solipsistic” to mean. I am using it in the sense of “The theory or view that the self is the only reality.” Specifically, Susan’s response reveals a view that a woman’s emotional reality is the only reality. This is reflected in this quote:
Here we see the status of the man being defined exclusively by the emotional state of the woman, rather than any characteristic of his or any thing she might do for him. It is this self centered worldview that I correctly describe as solipsistic.
@Damien
Totally agreed. In my (way blue pill, this-is-what-a-feminist looks like) earlier years, I dated unattractive, ‘nice’ girls. They had charm, but no beauty. I was utterly miserable despite their charm ,and I never really knew why at the time.
Then I swallowed the red pill, picked up Game, started dating much more attractive women without any sort of feminine ‘je ne sais quoi’. And I didn’t really care for that much either, though at least I was then educated enough to know why not.
I’m only truly happy when dating a woman that has both at this point. And I know every man has to make concessions and all that, and I do when appropriate, but if I’m with a woman and she really is not making any attempt at all in one of the two spheres I just mentioned, I really don’t bother continuing with her, no matter how good she is in the other.
Crap. I gotta remember not to PJ’s full name in a comment. Now my last one is in moderation…
@ Joe:
I didn’t want to throw my hat into this discussion earlier, but I second this. It’s very bad for the U.S. to have falling birth rates because of the trends seen in those countries!
Depopulation – especially lopsided depopulation – comes with a whole host of associated problems!
Then she is not hypergamous in her actions. Few women in the UMC are, as there are very few men of higher status available. Most UMC women have to settle for a peer at best, or remain single.
I suppose why that’s been single for some time; I’m constantly striving to improve myself in a wide range of arenas – Game, social circle, career, physicality, and finances – and too many women I meet in my age group are coasting by on merely being women and don’t really apply that same all-out self-improvement assault in their own lives. At this point I’m outright relieved when I meet a decently attractive mid to late 20s woman that has at least moved out from their parents’ home (Chicago), and I get the feeling that said woman would not give me the time of day if /I/ was still living at home.
No, the general understanding of hypergamy is that the woman marries a man of superior social status – superior to her own status, specifically.”
The general understanding of hypergamy in the mansphere(and aren’t we part of it?) is that hypergamy is the pursuit by women for better men than the men they have around them: taller guys, fitter guys, richer guys, more good-looking guys etc.
If that’s your definition, it’s fairly meaningless. It just means that a woman wants the best partner she can get. Men want that too.
The “hyper” in hypergamy means “over”; it is implied that the reference for “over” is the woman’s own status. Wikipedia defines it as such:
All the sociological papers I’ve read use it in this manner. The tendency of women to choose mates of higher rank than themselves is the driving force for the social ramifications. If all women insist on marrying up, men at the bottom and women at the top have difficulty finding mates.
Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed). I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. I wonder if this is simply what the backlash against feminism is all about.
No. No more than women are actually threatened by men who are stylish, pretty, look fabulous in skirts, and have zero sexual interest in women. You’re making the mistake of thinking that a man correctly realizing that what he brings to the table is not wanted, desired, or needed is somehow tantamount to being threatened. Think about it. What is the threat? What is the danger this woman poses to him? And if there is no danger, then what would he feel threatened about?
The backlash against feminism is because more and more men are realizing that feminism is the primary means of demolishing Western civilization. The West is literally dying, economically and demographically, and feminism is one of the primary reasons. Those who value the West want women home and married by 25 because we would like our children, and our children’s children, to grow up in a functioning and stable civilization, not a decadent one collapsing into pagan barbarism.
Now, many people firmly believe that Western civilization and its fruits will survive without its traditional religious and societal foundations. Those people are very, very wrong and it is becoming increasingly obvious that is the case.
You’re new here so you missed the comments some weeks back where I laid down the gauntlet on the Manosphere’s incorrect use of the word “solipsistic”.
And he is quite properly ignoring you. As is pretty much everyone else. It is a nicely descriptive term describing an observed pattern of behavior. As Mr. Wavevector correctly pointed out, you don’t even understand what hypergamy is, or its etymological roots.
@Sai
“If a woman truly loves you, she will fight to her last breath with utmost courage, for you.”
Could come in handy in the coming, any-day-now, zombie apocalypse.
Won a fencing competition at Uni and it was only the second time that I ever did it(!)…they were somewhat disgruntled (true story). I gave up when I realised that I could beat them with their 2-3 years of training just because I was fast and coordinated – so, what’s the point? Luckily, I found a more fun alternative
”If that’s your definition, it’s fairly meaningless. It just means that a woman wants the best partner she can get. Men want that too. ”
A woman’s beauty and number of sexual partners is interconnected with her social status. Her academical degree, her social background don’t mean anything to most men. I don’t look at women when I’m in college and think, ”Damn, I gotta get me some of that – I heard her master thesis on Tolkien was the hot stuff!”
I look at women, see if they fulfill my base requirement in looks and from there I figure if I’m sexually attracted to her, or if there’s more to it. Since I find most young women to be attractive(for they have the right weight for their height, are pleasant to look at etc) I don’t neccessarily chase after the perfect 10. Matter of fact I’m more attracted to this 5.5 than I am to the perfect german natural blonde I’ve been hanging out with.
Truth be told, I was hanging around her to figure out if my attraction to her was hormonal only. And it was. I spent two hours with her and I realized I only listen to what she says because of her looks. Would I want to deal with this on a daily basis(marriage)?
Not in this lifetime.
So you see, when the average woman chases after the tall/fit/good-looking/rich/sparkling colgate teeth she’s practicing hypergamy, because she’s going for men who are of higher social status than her own, and that is the definition of hypergamy amongst the vast majority of the people who belong to the mansphere.
@VD:
“the early 20th century anti-suffragettes were correct and feminism is the primary means of demolishing Western civilization. The West is literally dying, economically and demographically, and feminism is one of the primary reasons.”
Are you serious here, or is this some kind of subtle humour that totally escapes me?
If I follow your reasoning, then you should immediately remove women the right to vote. You could also blame feminism for the general decline of the literacy rate, or the fact that over 65% of the US population is overweight, among others.
Next step, how about claiming that Sandy was launched by a vast feminist conspiracy?
@DV
don’t see how you get to Sandy…can you explain that one?
as for the rest, I’ve got me wine and cheese, take it away…
@justiz
That was poor sarcasm on my part. An attempt to show that you could blame feminism for just about anything.
Oh, DV, how funny.
Why is patriarchy the dominant social arrangement? It’s because it’s the OPPOSITE of oppressive to women: it’s oppressive to MEN.
Patriarchy is the ONLY social arrangement that is capable of generating massive male investment from 90% of men. That may not be thought of as quite so huge a deal, because so much of our economy is now Apple products and advertising and healthcare. It’s a huge deal when you have Hard Work to do, like building roads, or repairing oil wells, or colonizing North America, or beating the Germans.
That Hard Work is the foundation of civilizations. The Soft Work that women do is also the foundation of civilizations, when the Soft Work is “raising children.” It is not useful in an economic context, except when the Hard Work of building civilization is already done. Or society is so damn decayed that families no longer raise their own children.
What has now happened is the dissolution of the social mores and foundations that have supported patriarchal societies. You will find that most guys will say that this is a good thing: we think women should vote, have a say in how many children they should have, and should not be raped or viewed as property.
We’ve gone with that, but our society has also removed a lot of the incentive for male investment. And males are responding like males should…not investing. Not all guys, of course, but more and more are dropping out, and that’s how avalanches start.
Besides, you don’t need all guys to drop out to start causing huge, huge problems. Society can handle a small part of “ruin” in it. The parts that don’t work, so to speak. Some homeless we give scraps too, some kids that don’t realize their full potential, some places where we can’t stop crime no matter how many police we put there.
We absolutely are not going to survive with 60% of families being broken. Not as a superpower anyways, but as a Third World hellhole with pockets of First World awesomeness, with all the social and political arrangements that implies.
That’s not a good future.
@VD
I also have a sugestion for you:
You could also settle down in some remote village in Corsica or Sicily, and date a young woman there…You’d love her upbringing.
Although, make sure you wear a bulletproof jacket when you meet her brothers.
@DV
sorry, I was kidding too. I got your intent.
I’m in favour of restricting the right to vote, but it wouldn’t simply be based on innie vs outie genitalia (that debate could be amusing to witness from the sidelines though).
Ol’ Mitt certainly did put a cat amongst the pigeons when he talked about the 47% (iirc from overseas). What happens when the majority has the automatic ability to vote themselves the money of the minority? ‘Your’ Founding Fathers had views on the subject that look prescient.
@ADBG
+1
see you poolside
@Damien Vulaume
“Sounds like you got off to a good start in being an attractive woman…”
That’s why I had parents to help me check myself before I wrecked myself. I can’t believe I just typed that.
@Just1Z
“usual benefits package. apartments in moonbase and volcano HQ. as senior management you would not need to wear an opaque visor.”
…Okay!
“If a woman truly loves you, she will fight to her last breath with utmost courage, for you.”
That wasn’t my quote, I just liked it and responded with a movie clip.
@ Iggles
Ahh the hamster is strong with this one.
@ VD
No. That’s the viewpoint of your little corner of the manosphere. Most of the manosphere is more worried about fairness towards men than the fall of Western civilization.
@Intj
“Most of the manosphere is more worried about fairness towards men than the fall of Western civilization.”
I think that the two are pretty strongly linked…but each has the right to disagree. I think that it’s pretty clear who built society and who do the crappy, dangerous jobs that keep it running. As I said, I think that the two issues are strongly linked.
@Sai,
it was a good quote. if that’s how you feel then you can have my back when Austin Powers / James Bond / teh zombeeeeez attack and the ‘sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads’ fail us.
Speaking of Austin Powers, I have some Alan Parsons Project albums from my distant past – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Duj2oZIC8U
and Wang Chung and Bananarama
oh the shame!
BTW
“That’s why I had parents to help me check myself before I wrecked myself.”
and what an interesting person you are! *raises eyebrow* (just one, I’m British; we don’t do showy emotions)
See you at Ted’s Beer ‘n’ BBQ Fest by the pool – we can swap tales.
Cheers.
You mean the male hamster
Yep, it is, lol!
@Mr. Wavevector
There’s a lot to unpack here – I hope I can shed some light on where I’m coming from re a husband’s authority over his wife.
First, as you know, hypergamy is rooted in a woman’s desire to secure the best possible package of resources for her future offspring. Material resources, but also a man’s network of connections and influence as a result of his being a leader among men. What he gets in exchange for that is a hotter wife. (David Buss) Many high status men voluntarily marry women who are anything but deferential or willing to submit to authority. A man may want that dynamic and seek it in a partner, but that is not what he gets as a result of status, per se. She gets good stuff for her children, e.g. leadership genes, material wealth, connections, and he gets good stuff for his children, e.g. youth, beauty, high fertility.
Second, in terms of what my husband gets from commitment to me, I would say Gray explained it well: trust, acceptance, appreciation, admiration, approval, encouragement. I provide all of these on a daily basis. A natural outgrowth of having that kind of respect for my husband means that I will naturally defer to his judgment on many things. He has veto power on just about any issue. However, it’s only fair to say that with the exception of our finances, where I defer to him entirely, I have veto power as well.
Together we made the decision that I would stay at home when my second child was born. This was a suggestion initiated by my husband, but one that I welcomed with relief. My job, which involved frequent air travel and long hours, had created great stress for our family after our son was born, even though I had cut back to three days per week. I recall worrying that living on one income would produce a great deal of stress for him, and said that I didn’t think it was fair – what would he get out of it? His reply was “the best care imaginable for my children.” Throughout all these years, he has remained firm that this deal was fair and beneficial to all parties, and is convinced that our children are the people they are in large part because they had the experience of my being home.
Third, I want to clarify that in describing myself as “strong and independent” I was not referring to being financially independent, obviously. Rather, I mean that I am capable of thinking and acting for myself. In fact, one of the reasons my marriage has worked so well is that in exchange for the luxury and privilege of being at home, I have worked hard to make my husband’s home experience as comfortable and pleasurable as possible. Every conceivable physical need of his is attended to with enthusiasm and without complaint
. Our house is comfortable, clean, and well maintained. His clothes are cleaned and pressed at all times. I cook very high quality meals six nights a week. I maintain our cars and negotiate and arrange for all the services we need, from media and entertainment to vacation planning to gift giving and remembrances, for both his family and mine. I maintain the garden with only occasional help from my husband in lifting heavy things. The bottom line: he works his job and brings home the paycheck. He handles our finances. Literally every other thing is done for him. He has no errands to run on weekends.
He would vehemently deny that he is being exploited in any way, and would say instead that he marvels at the benefits I provide in our marriage on a daily basis. I’m sorry to have tooted my own horn here, but I hope that I have provided one clear illustration of how an egalitarian marriage can work and thrive, with both parties deriving benefits and feeling very fortunate.
Question to men:
Would you want your sisters, daughters, mothers, and wives working on a dangerous, messy oil rig, or in an office?
Question to men:
If you are told you are constantly oppressing women all the time, are probably a rapist, have lots of privilege, a creep, lazy, etc, would you want to work on a messy oil rig for a woman?
Haha, that’s a relief. One of the things I enjoy a lot about being in my 50s is that I am now free to be as outgoing and friendly as I please with men of all ages without worrying about sexual undercurrents.
Just1z, I don’t like to get into politics, but a lot of the 47% do pay taxes on the local level, such as taxes on goods, services, and payroll taxes, just not necessarily federal income taxes. They also often pay taxes then get a return back, so that money collects interest in the federal coffers.
Also, the economy of today is such that disposal income of the bottom tend to go back into the economy, because the lower classes want to buy stuff, while the huge increase in wealth at the top tend to get swirled around at the top with the investment class. That money goes into overseas bank accounts and more global investments, as opposed to building the national economy.
Recall that small businesses get taxed at the normal rate, while investments are taxed at the capital gains rate, which are also deferred until taken out, so the “potential” wealth could go quite low as in cases of bubbles bursting. The complicated mathy derivatives and stock packages are just glorified gambling.
The economy at the top is like a giant expensive casino, while the economy at the bottom is the poor and lower middle class making minimum wage and squeaking by, waiting tables, doing cashier work, etc. There are very few who don’t work at all and collect benefits. Not sure how it is in the UK, but that is how it is in the US.
Trickle down economics hasn’t worked. Mitt Romney lost because he was clearly a tool from the wealthy investment class, and the poor who voted for him were ignorant fools who thought their positions could be improved by more pyramid schemes. The elites are no longer national, but global. They care not about US faltering, because with their wealth, they can be anywhere. They’ve transcended.
I’m grateful not to be one of those Chinese factory workers working long hours for dollars a month in awful conditions, but I am not under delusions of grandeur that if my taxes are cut and federal spending becomes miniscule, my life will become so much more amazing here as barely a member of the UMC. Finally, Utah is a nice state because the rich actually reinvest locally (the Mormon influence) and spend the wealth on the “little people.”
@ADBG
No and No.
My statement refers to nothing more than the nature of the mating transaction. We figure out our SMV via trial and error. This is especially true for men, whose SMV is dependent on more than just looks. A man whose status gives him an SMV bump will figure out how much his status is worth according to which women are receptive to his attention. Ron Perelman’s status was obviously worth a great deal, as he got a sexy, albeit aging moviestar to marry him. Based on his looks alone, which I consider well below average, his mate should also be quite unattractive.
The sexual economics of this is simple: His status for her looks. It has nothing to do with the emotional state of the woman.
@Susan
“Haha, that’s a relief. One of the things I enjoy a lot about being in my 50s is that I am now free to be as outgoing and friendly as I please with men of all ages without worrying about sexual undercurrents.”
That was kinda my point.
Woman don’t become useless after the age of 35. Their useless in terms of marriage and kids but there are other ways to add value to the world.
One of those is to be an all around nurturer (lady mentioned above).
Women can have men wrapped around heir fingers even when sex is not on the table.
Those who think they can’t aren’t feminine enough.
Last, women can gain a far more powerful position in the world by being feminine than being a dominant bitch.
I’ve wondered before whether there isn’t some law of diminishing returns for hypergamy. Certainly I and other women at Wharton who married men from the class felt that we had hit the jackpot – there wasn’t a sense that our dreamboats were out there somewhere with even higher status. My husband was 28 when we got together – and his youth and potential were a far more attractive package than a potentially wealthier but older man.
If hypergamy is about securing resources for offspring, surely there is a point at which a woman feels that the critical level of status has been reached. In addition, if she is a potentially high earner herself, she can afford to go younger and hotter (similar to a man) in exchange for a bit of status.
Most successful marriages in the U.S. today are assortative, between parties of similar education and status.
@VD:
“The backlash against feminism is because more and more men are realizing that the early 20th century anti-suffragettes were correct and feminism is the primary means of demolishing Western civilization. The West is literally dying, economically and demographically, and feminism is one of the primary reasons.”
The West is ending because cultures end when they become culturally exhausted/run into resource constraints.
I’m pretty sure that the final cultural peak was circa WWI. We are still technologically developing, so there’s material progress. There’s just no longer cultural/spiritual progress.
In any event, I’m pretty sure that the great migrations/pagan warbands are essentially baked into the cake at this point.
It’s more of a problem of post-modernism/consumer capitalism/mass materialism than anything else.
Oswald Spengler did a wonderful analysis on this, basically seeing the analogy between High Cultures and other living things. Meaning that they are life, in the sense that they are born and they die.
You are unhappy that the West (Faustian civilization) is ending. Which is fine, but you can’t fix it because it’s not really fixable in the way that you want to fix it. You are going to need to find what’s in the future. You’re looking to the past.
The pagan warbands are coming (in the future). What are you going to do about this as the civilization continues to ossify and decline?
@Lokland: “Last, women can gain a far more powerful position in the world by being feminine than being a dominant bitch.”
Yes, and I see it everyday here. Although some can be the devil in disguise, you know the one, the corporate ladder climber.
@Hope:
Standing ovation for your last two paragraph!
@Just1Z
For further world-dominance ideas, check this link:
http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html
Point #100 is especially devious. Free advice is good for a “please don”t kill me card” right?
“Question to men:
Would you want your sisters, daughters, mothers, and wives working on a dangerous, messy oil rig, or in an office?”
NO.
@Lokland
“Last, women can gain a far more powerful position in the world by being feminine than being a dominant bitch.”
It’s amazing what you can get me to do if you follow up your request with a pretty smile. Assuming you’re female. If you’re male I’m going to back away slowly and look for a door. Just saying,
““She was always around. She didn’t make many demands, but she wanted to be a part of his life every waking moment, and when he pulled away for some autonomy, she followed close behind to reestablish intimacy as fast as possible.”
Ok. First of all, honestly this doesn’t sound so bad to me. I’ve had to learn to give my wife (past and current) space because I don’t mind the scenario described above at all. Seriously.
Second, how the hell do you folks that can’t live with your partner for a week intend to survive marriage? I’m not being a smart ass, but the reality is if you marry , you will see that person almost every, single, day of your life. So, if after a week they are driving you nuts, perhaps the relationship isn’t meant for the long haul.
Just my .02
ADBG – no and no
Ted, sometimes you just need alone space for a little bit. My SO lives hours away and I don’t get to see her all the time, but even when she comes in, occasionally I need a small break. So I keep my iPOD handy and just check into the web-er-net on occasion.
This realllllyy ground her nerves at first, but she does understand it now. It’s extremely intense to have someone ALWAYS THERE.
I imagine if I were to live with her, I’d take a few hours in my Man-Cave and watch tv shows I like or something.
@ Lok and Doom
I am glad to see that the men here do not want their women working on oil rigs for the sake of “equality.” I think most men recognize that full equality is bullshit and a bad idea, and most men would be horrified to see it come to full fruition.
I am pretty sure most men do not get off on the idea of excelling at female equalities. I’m good at working in groups, much better than my SO, but I don’t think of it as “I am an even better than a woman than a woman!”
The West is ending because cultures end when they become culturally exhausted/run into resource constraints.
Sure. Feminism/equalitarianism is merely the form in this case.
You are unhappy that the West (Faustian civilization) is ending. Which is fine, but you can’t fix it because it’s not really fixable in the way that you want to fix it. You are going to need to find what’s in the future. You’re looking to the past.
I never said it was fixable. In fact, I publicly pointed out the precise opposite in columns written back in 2001 and 2004.
The pagan warbands are coming (in the future). What are you going to do about this as the civilization continues to ossify and decline?
I wouldn’t assume the warbands will all be pagan.
@ Iggles
Well I’ve always been annoyed by how the hamster is considered exclusively female. Yes, it’s true that men tend to be more logical than women and that current society encourages women to pursue their base instincts (and rationalize them if necessary). But while the hamster might be more common and more severe in the average woman than the average man, it certainly does occur in males.
@ Hope
Not to mention a lot of those 47% include students and retirees, who shouldn’t be paying taxes…
This is quite a funny explanation of why feminism has an equality-seeking credibility-shortfall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=QKYPW0CTZwY
I think you should be able to handle the sco’ish accent, d’ya ken hens? the peculiar words are comprehensible from the context, or ask PJ what bint means. it isn’t rude over here (or India I have been told).
he’s a funny guy on the GirlWritesWhat channel – enjoy, he’s cool
Sorry PJ but you’re approaching peejcon4, I’m leaving you to your beaulux.
I tried being nice, but you just can’t manage an even keel, can you?
@Hope
thanks for the insight, I am a foreigner your ways are mysterious and strange…that and the fact that I hate politicians of all stripes in all countries – same shit, different gravy
What many western countries do have in common is that the rich (1% if you wish) don’t pay much tax as a %age of their income, the big companies have overseas HQs for tax purposes, the poor don’t have the money, so every time it’s the middles that gets the bill. Guess where I am?
I don’t want to pay for free housing for single-mummies-by-choice and their child benefits. or third generation never employed.
hence men opting to minimise their earnings to minimise their taxes. see Captain Capitalism’s blog – it’s what he’s doing. to really score with benefits you need to give birth to a kid with no resident daddy.
@VD:
“Pagan warbands” is shorthand.
The successful warbands with respect to the Roman Empire were Arian Christians.
@Hope:
“The elites are no longer national, but global. They care not about US faltering, because with their wealth, they can be anywhere. They’ve transcended.”
A lot of the “wealth” is fake.
It doesn’t really exist.
They haven’t transcended anything; they’re just delusional (in the sense that they don’t really understand the underlying reality).
@Hari:
“In the US its unfortunately not “pagans” who are coming but more and more Catholics (sorry Susan but you know how I feel about intolerant monotheism).”
I think that was 10 years ago, if you are talking about hispanics. The construction boom ended.
Now, it’s people from Asia.:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/11/09/what-about-asian-americans/
And the immediate American problem is that the hegemonic delegitmation process has begun. Which is going to be bad news unless the U.S. comes up with an actual solution that actually mitigates the damage.
“If you are in the system you have to work unless you can prove “disability” which is very difficult to do.”
Yes.
As I tell my clients, you actually have to have medical evidence that proves you are disabled.
Administrative Law Judges generally only care about the evidence.
@Hope
I’ll agree that supply-side promises of windfall tax revenue didn’t materialize as promised. But I haven’t seen any evidence that demand-side economics works all that well, either. The only time it has (per my college economic history classes) was when the gov’t all but nationalized the economy during WW2. That wasn’t meant to be a long-term solution, and it was rolled back dramatically after the war was over.
This little nugget was reported in July by Bloomberg News, well before the election. I never heard it mentioned at all during the debates, though I wouldn’t have expected the President to do so:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/companies-say-3-million-unfilled-positions-in-skill-crisis-jobs.html
No federal stimulus would have addressed this particular problem, which is probably why unemployment remains so high.
Thanks to Doomwolf for his link, entertaining! and so informative.
I have done more investigation into my plan for world domination bwahahahah etc
unfortunately Sai, you’re out of a jub:
http://www.hmss.com/films/villains/evilgenius/
ADBG – I guess “alone time” is different from person to person. I get most of my share of “alone time” sitting in bed with my wife while she watches TV and I do my thing on the laptop or iPad. Other than that, my daily drive to work and an occasional solo excursion are all I need.
That being said, my wife and I have spent entire afternoons together without talking more than a few short paragraphs worth. So perhaps I get enough space from her even when I’m with her. I’ll have to think on this, because generally I DO need space from my friends and extended family.
“Construction has given way to Big Agro and Big Meat, which employs EVEN MORE illegal Catholic immigrants from south of the boarder.”
My point was that the momentum has shifted from hispanic to asian immigration.
This is really only relevant to the question of whether California is going to be primarily a hispanic culture or an asian-hispanic fusion culture and has little to do with anything else.
@Hari: “Any examples of that? Thatcher? Clinton (Hillary)? Gandhi (Indira)?, Rice? Who?”
Lol. I would pull out Indira Ghandi from the list, The others are not women, but creatures from the opposite sex, and career politicians…enough said. You could also include Madeleine Allbright and Segolene Royal in the pack.
I was talking about the ambitious, feminine, young, well mannered, sweet talking and very attractive girls coming from a small village hitting the capital city with high career expectations in big corporations. I don’t know how that scene looks like in the US though.
@VD:
“And yes, in any sane society that wishes to survive, women and 80 percent of men would not be permitted to vote. John Adams explained the former, Cicero the latter. I understand most people think I’m crazy. Most people also thought I was crazy when I told them to buy gold like crazy at $275 an ounce when Gordon Brown was dumping it. Most people are idiots… which is why nearly every coherent thinker since Ancient Greece has known that democracy is insane, unstable, and unsustainable.”
Preventing 80 percent of men and all women from voting doesn’t really do anything in terms of the longevity of a High Culture.
I understand your point, but I don’t think that taking away the right to vote from women is really going to fix anything.
The current embodiment of the Savior/Welfare State is a function of the problems encountered during the Great Depression and relates directly to industrialization.
@ Ted:
I questioned this as well, and tbh it was kind of at the root of my insecurity when I felt him pulling away. But as ADBG mentioned above, I’m fine with the idea of him having his own “man cave” for retreat, and I actually don’t mind having my own alone time as well. We’ve also been able to each do our own thing, not speaking to each other, simply sharing the same room for company. It’s a pretty nice arrangement, if I do say so myself!
” but there has been no downward shift in the momentum of illegal Catholic immigration.”
I think it’s net zero at the moment because there’s no longer a credit bubble.
In any event, religious freedom is going to be the least of our worries going forward.
Secular liberalism doesn’t have the slightest interest in it beyond being annoyed that religion is still here and that’s who is going to be running the show for some time.
This thread has gone completely off the rails. Break’s over. Back to briefing.
« 1 2 3 4 … 11 »