Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Today we will discuss:
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
In “A Note on Hypergamy” I wrote how one reader got what he should have gotten, and that ultimately most men end up getting what they “want.” Not as much happens by pure chance as might be assumed.
Notice that I put “want” in quotation marks. If he were me, he’d be married with kids. But he’s not me, he’s himself. He loves a certain culture and certain music. He loves the outdoors. He lives on the left coast. He’s his own man. He isn’t married because he is who he is. Any man who is comfortable with who he is is already getting what he “wants.” If he “wanted” something different, he would have chosen something different! He got where he was by his own choices.
He got there by his own choices, and he knows it. Now, lest anyone think that I’m picking on men or one man in particular, the same applies just as much to women:
Overall, I truly believe the ones who are going to get hurt in the long run are women. And I don’t say that out of spite or glee, but sadness. Because once their eggs dry up and their beauty fades…man, just go to Tiktok. So many ladies are trying to warn you.
When you see that video…you can’t help but feel sorry for them, knowing full well that they brought it upon themselves by the choices they made. And that’s the point.
Now, let’s discuss the rest here:
Derek responded to the “hypergamy” stuff from yesterday and the day before. He agrees that Jason is getting what the market has decided he should get. He complains about my use of the word “deserve”.
1) According to Derek’s logic, Jason is alone because the market has decided that’s what he gets. Or, if one prefers, the market has decided that solitude and no mate is what Jason deserves. The market decides what everyone “deserves”.
There is no moral component to this. It was simply a choice of words. You can call it “deserve” or “fate” or “market forces” or “judgment”. The mechanisms and results are the same. There are some men and women who don’t get matched up because the market has decided that’s what they should get and that’s what their “worths” are. Ergo, they’re getting what they deserve- what the market has decided they deserve.
2) Derek says he doesn’t know if it’s the “proper” outcome for Jason. Well, according to his logic and market forces (which I agree with), it is the “proper” outcome as well as the “probable” and “logical” outcome. It is proper, because the market has decided it is proper.
3) Derek says the market is just what happens, not what “should” happen. That’s quite a different story from what he told yesterday in which he chided men for not accepting that they “got exactly what they should have gotten” (his words). Which is it? Should they get these things? Or should they not? Make up your mind.
4) Yes, men are getting what they “should’ have gotten – and they were and are fine with it. Men accept it and forge ahead.
This is more-or-less accurate and we’ve already mostly discussed where I diverge from this.
The word proper generally implies a moral evaluation of what is right or wrong. I don’t like to say that an outcome was proper, because I can’t—as an outsider—effectively evaluate such things. I can say is that the outcome was probable or expected (“should happen” or “should have gotten”); a logical result.
Unlike many others, I’m not interested in passing judgments. In the world of ideas, that would be an ad hominem.
Jason could be getting what he deserves as a punishment from God, or he could be getting what he deserves purely as a result of his own choices made by his free will. Or some combination. Or some other explanation.
I’d have to be God to know. So, I’m not going to sit in judgment. That’s not my place, and it isn’t the job of anyone else in the peanut gallery either.
Women are getting what they “should” have gotten too. Women are getting what the market has decided they “deserve” and are worth. And women are not fine with it. Women don’t accept it. They grouse and bitch and complain about it and destroy everything around them precisely because they won’t accept what the market has declared their worth and value to be and they won’t accept the pairings they expressly agreed to.
I think the video above expresses that women are reaping what they sowed. Their choices naturally led to the results they are experiencing. It’s a logical cause and effect.
Do they deserve it? Are they to blame? Are others? I would say both yes and no: it is impossible to generalize what applies to individuals.
5) Men do not expect the market to be fair. We accept that it is not. All we expect and demand (and we are right to expect and demand it) is that the women who we pair with (who expressly AGREED to those pairings as an expression of their worth and value) accept those unfairnesses as well.
It has been estimated that around 5% to 10% of new brides are virgins.[1] Even adjusting those who lost their virginity to the person they eventually wedded—and saying nothing about whether then men were virgins—a sizable majority of relationships are adulterous. It is nearly impossible to speak of what is “fair” in such a fundamentally illicit environment. Fair could only occur if most of those marriages never took place. Fair would be lifetime celibacy for ~90% of the population. Any claim to fairness is waived when one commits adultery, consent and agreement notwithstanding. It is only by the grace of God—not fairness—that any adulterous union results in a positive outcome.
We could, perhaps, speak of what is fair for a rare pair of God-honoring virgins, but we can’t speak of what is fair to the generic (or average) men and women, as the commenter is doing here. The entire premise needs to be reframed before any further related discussion can occur.
If men have to accept that they “got what they should have gotten” and what the “market has decided they deserve”, then women must accept similar principles applied to them.
I would say that men must accept reality: they can’t live in a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Don’t wallow in the past, but take action.
As for what women must do, this blog is masculine-oriented. Go visit Lori Alexander’s blog, or one of the blogs of the Ladies’ Auxilliary, if that is your concern.
This is consistent with Derek’s “peaceful submission” relationship model in which he claims that men and women are equal and have to “submit” to and “love” each other, particularly when the women involved agreed to their pairings. That model either applies to everyone equally, or it does not. Women are fully bound to that every bit as much as men are. If men have to operate in that model with a woman they assortatively paired with; then women must operate within that as well.
Pseudonymous Commenter is continuing to get things wrong by invertedly misattributing claims to me, despite two failed attempts to correct him.[2] It is not my relationship model, as the model’s maker clearly expressed upon its formulation[3] and again[2] later. Moreover, that model is presumably based on luck or chance,[4] which as we saw in “Is Staying Married A Matter Of Luck?” does not reflect either my viewpoint or reality.
6) I also have a “high view of agency”. Men are fully responsible. So are women. I don’t agree with any notion that women aren’t fully responsible for accepting their fates, just as men are for accepting theirs. Again – peaceful submission demands that women accept who they got paired up with and cooperate. Each individual woman is fully responsible for that. A man cannot make her do that except to hold her accountable for that.
Women are agentic. Women are responsible. Women are fully accountable for their conduct, including their acceptance of what the market has decided they “deserve”.
I talk about agency below.
Which brings me to
7) Men are not “blaming” or casting women in the role of “villain”. Men are pointing out RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. Women are responsible to accept what the market has decided they deserve. And they are accountable to the men the market has put them with. When women engage in hypergamy, they are looking to escape the market’s judgment and they won’t accept what they “deserve”. In doing so, women are being irresponsible and unaccountable. And men should not accept that conduct. Women’s conduct in this regard bespeaks deficient character.
Hold up here. This is a truly astounding statement. I almost find it hard to believe that the commenter actually said this. There is a serious problem with the claim that men are not blaming women but are merely pointing out responsibility. Here is what the word blame means:
Blame, verb: assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
Blame, noun: responsibility for a fault or wrong.
Pointing out responsibility is the dictionary definition of blaming. Now, I will grant that the above is not necessarily a moral judgment, as with this definition…
Blame, noun: an expression of disapproval or reproach.
…but no one can conclude that this commenter is not making a disapproving moral judgment about women’s behaviors. Indeed, he states right here that women have a “deficient character.” It is perfectly clear.
By contrast, when I have spoken of men getting what they “want” or “should get,” I have been careful to assign blame only in the amoral first sense and not in the moral second sense. In fact, I agree with old Manosphere writer Keoni Galt that these things are amoral.
Moreover, in a currently unpublished article—where I responded to questions that surfdumb asked—I said that men should—as leaders do—take responsibility, command, and agency even when they are not to blame:
Thus, my view of agency is higher than Commenter’s, because I don’t care to assign blame—to take a moral stance—I only care that the proponent of Christian patriarchy acts in accordance with his stated beliefs. The men in the ‘sphere who promote such views should live by them (or else repudiate them).
If a man believes that his patriarchal domain is assigned to him by God and that he is responsible to God for the result of his marriage, then it’s irrelevant to him whether or not she is to blame (in either sense). Here is what Paul said:
Nowhere does Paul give a man a pass simply because his wife is to blame. A divorced man can’t be an overseer.
Paul puts a man’s household and marital status entirely on him, without respect to whether or not any failings are his wife’s fault. So if a man also believes that God established this as part of the natural order, how could he possibly refuse to take complete responsibility?
I find the generic public repudiation of women outside of the home and church—by men who claim that their public declarations are not part of the official church or the body of Christ proper—to reduce a man’s agency.
8) Men are not driving any of this. Women are. As I said – men are fine with this. It’s women who are not. Men accept this. It’s women who will not accept it. And women are fully personally responsible for that.
I’ve already explained why this is factually incorrect in earlier writings. But let’s try another approach.
I believe the commenter might be viewing divorce primarily as a first-order effect. So, if women file for divorce, they are responsible for the divorce—a first-order effect. But, in many cases, first-order effects are overly simplistic explanations that discount second- and third-order effects.
Consider the recent wildfires in California (here). Many leftist politicians came out and criticized the insurance companies for leaving the state, blaming them for not covering the burnt properties. The lack of home insurance coverage was the first-order explanation. But the second-order explanation was that the voters of California had passed a proposition against insurance companies being able to make a profit, thus forcing them to leave the state.
The first-order explanation was simplistic and did not intuitively assign blame to the actual responsible party: the voters themselves. Voters voted in the very rules that ultimately harmed themselves.[5] They got the outcome that they literally voted for, what they wanted to happen.
I’ve spent a lot of time discussing second- and third-order explanations for divorce (and “hypergamy”) and why blanket statements like “men are not driving this” and “women are fully responsible” are wrong. But I can do nothing about the persistence of the simplistic first-order explanations behind them. Hopefully pointing out this problem is enough.
9) The problems in this current market are that men are not attractive enough. Women are not attractive enough for the men which the market has decided they cannot have. Women’s refusal to accept this indicates deficient character.
This would be a good time to watch this YouTube video…
…that I found in Rock Kitaro’s article (that I linked to above).
The simple fact is that the ratio of men-to-women on dating apps is about 2:1. The first-order effect of this supply-and-demand imbalance accounts for a majority of the problems in the current market. The second-order effects account for most of the remaining imbalance. Moreover, since dating app data shows that both men and women are highly selective, it is not clear that attractiveness has much impact at all on dating outcomes. Considering how important online dating is…
…there is very little evidence to support Commenter’s claim. In any case, if selectivity is a deficiency on the character of women, then the widespread measured selectivity of men condemns them as a group as well. But, frankly, it’s silly to condemn a person’s character because of amoral supply-and-demand dynamics or because of long-established intrasexual and intersexual competition practices.
This is not to say that men are of impeccable character. Far from it. Men’s character defects are not what is driving this phenomenon. It’s women’s character defects that are. That is not blame or casting aspersions or accusing women of villainy. It is simply a hard cold fact – women by and large lack the character to accept the men the market has decided they should have and who they chose. Are there some women who have that character? Sure. But mostly, women just don’t have that character. If they did, they would not be trying to defeat the market by having sex with more attractive men than who will commit. If they did, they would not try to make their husbands’ lives miserable. If they did, they would not blow up their marriages because of “unhappiness” or “dissatisfaction”.
The problem is not men. The problem here, THIS problem under discussion here, is on women. Not men. This is about women’s deficient character and THEIR failure to accept what the market has decreed they should get. Or, if you prefer, “what the market has decided they DESERVE.”
We’ve already discussed the problems with this thesis at length, so I won’t repeat what I’ve already said. If you’ve read what I’ve written, you already know how I would directly respond to this. So, rather than copy and paste what I’ve already written, I’m just going to put comment here for the record…. and leave this, umm, cold hard definition from Webster’s dictionary:
cast aspersions, formal idiom — to say harsh critical things about someone or someone’s character
Note: if you find that I’ve missed something, feel free to ask me to clarify in the comment section below.
I doubt Derek will respond to any of this because candidly I don’t think he understands this issue at all. But I guess we’ll see.
That’s very interesting. Speaking candidly, that statement might threaten the likelihood of the 99% or the 95%.
Footnotes
[1] Per this study from 2016 using data from 2002 to 2013:
Aside from religion, race and family of origin accounted for the largest portion of the sexual partners/divorce relationship. Caucasian and African American women had similar premarital sexual behavior, but Latinas and members of the “Other” population group had notably fewer sex partners and lower divorce rates than either whites or blacks. Similarly, people who grew up without both parents had more partners and divorced more
[2] The second misattribution occurred here:
Derek’s “Peaceful Unity” model is not “headship / submission”. It is “submission / submission”. Everyone submits to everyone. Husband submits to his wife by loving her. Wife submits to her husband by “respecting” (but never, never “obeying” or “submitting to” or “being subject to”) him.
It was followed up with this correction:
The difference between Headship and my concept of Peaceful Unity is…
…
That’s how I see Derek. He and his wife are too close to see each other clearly. I say this to his honor, but as you described above, it doesn’t help his exegesis of scripture.
Of course, this is all conjecture and best guesstimation, because we cannot observe Derek’s marriage first-hand. Derek has written tomes on his views of marriage but he is rather tight-lipped when it comes to talking about his own marriage. But from what I can tell, I believe Derek has a marriage that fits my description of the Peaceful Unity model (not to be confused with his own descriptions of marriage); that is, he has an agentic, spiritually mature, obedient, submissive wife, which frees him up to write a compendium of apologetics on his concept of “mutual submission” (which many of us here believe is errant, as Thedeti satirized above).
Casual readers should note that Derek’s descriptions of marriage are not at all like my descriptions of the Peaceful Unity model or our other writings on Headship. I kindly ask that readers not confuse the two.
[3] Here is the origin of the Peaceful Unity model.
The Peaceful Unity model is my own construction intended to describe Derek’s concept of marriage which also corresponds to DeepStrength’s model. Living Entity” is my own description of how I imagine Ramsey experiences his marriage. I presume this Living Entity is the Holy Spirit. I believe that the presence of this Living Entity / Holy Spirit is the central element of what I have called the Peaceful Unity model. These are not his own words, but I’m hoping it resonates with him.
Later I wrote this about the Peaceful Unity Model:
…and…
…and other Red Pill models, the primary concern with models, procedures, rules, and other abstractions is related to positivist leftism, which is tends towards being anti-Christian.
I have no model to offer anyone. To the extent that I have anything to offer, it is Christ and the Word of God.
You can see what else I’ve written about the model here.
[4]
The “Peaceful Unity” model sounds like “two people who hit the compatibility jackpot and are perfectly in sync on the things that really matter to them.”
It’s not really a “model” because it is mostly blind luck.
Yes, it is not a selectable option at present, but seems to happen only by chance, as EoS said. However, I believe the Peaceful Unity model is God’s will for every marriage (whether or not they have actually found it), so I will stick to this point.
[5] The same thing happened with the “we ran out of water to fight the fires” problem.
Derek,
There is one thing i want to get straight with Pseudonymous Commenter, Derek knows you are the main standard bearer=repersenitive of the miserably married MEN in the Dalrockian manosphere as i ,once told you at SF around May 2021, remember?
Similar to Ben Bernake being shorthand/represents/ symbolizes all the banker, corporate, churchian marriage, and Governmental fraud back in the old days of the Roisstosphere/manosphere?
Or on a more positive and hopeful note like how GBFM represents/ symbolizes all the classical polymathic MEN of old(some of whom still roam the earth it appears yes?).
This one is for you, Pseudonymous Commenter bro😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tlJVLl6KHk
Every Man ~ Casting Crowns ~ lyric video
I’m the man with all I’ve ever wanted
All the toys and playing games
I am the one who pours your coffee
Corner booth each Saturday
I am your daughter’s favourite teacher
I am your defense lawyer in your criminal trialzlolzzlollzzz(this was included to honor Pseudonymous Commenter)
I’m the leader of the band
I sit behind you in the bleachers
I am every man
I’m the coach of every winning team
And still a loser in my mind
I am the soldier in the airport
Facing giants one more time
I am the woman shamed and haunted
By the cry of unborn life
And every broken man
Nervous child, lonely wife
Is there hope for every man?
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
Is there hope for every man?
Is there love that never dies?
Is there peace in troubled times?
Someone help me understand
Is there hope for every man?
It seems there’s just so many roads to travel
It’s hard to tell where they will lead
My life is scarred, my dreams unravelled
Now I am scared to take the lead
If I could find someone to follow
Who knows my pain and feels the way
The uncertainty of my tomorrow
The guilt and pain of yesterday
Is there hope for every man?
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
Is there hope for every man?
Is there love that never dies?
Is there peace in troubled times?
Someone help me understand
Is there hope for every man?
There is hope for every man
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
There is hope for every man
There is love that never dies
There is peace in troubled times
Will we help them understand
Jesus is hope for every man
There is hope for every man
A solid place where we can stand
In this dry and weary land
There is hope for every man
There is love that never dies
There is peace in troubled times
Will we help them understand
Jesus is hope for every man
So remember when you think ”From a quick review of stats (because I know little Derek is here fisking and fact checking everything I write despite the fact that he says he doesn’t care about what I say and that he won’t respond to what I say anymore):” he is only honoring you as WE all do here as the main standard bearer=repersenitive/shorthand/symbol of the miserably married MEN in the Dalrockian manosphere(and beyond it to it seems.
Your are the reason business picked up at Spawnys in August/September after your falling out with the Radix Fdem version of SF(for crying out loud too) as Jack and Oscar started preaching ”lots of unicorns out there bros of ye become a linesMAN or something”, you as well as i, Derek and MOD know that isn’t TRUE).
Nothing more, Nothing less brah.
That’s very interesting. Speaking candidly, that statement might threaten the likelihood of the 99% or the 95%.
That’s why i said it Derek😉😊😎😇
What is this, Professor?
From a quick review of stats (because I know little Derek is here fisking and fact checking everything I write despite the fact that he says he doesn’t care about what I say and that he won’t respond to what I say anymore)”
Did the Commenter write that?
How many times do I have to tell him he is wrong about what he “knows” before he will get it and stop repeating the same error over-and-over again? He keeps speaking out of sheer ignorance. As I said before (which remains true):
If they choose to read and respond to what I write, there is a very good chance I will not see it.
…or this:
I have not been going there to read the things he (or anyone else there) is writing.
The fact is, despite copious clues, he still doesn’t understand the dynamics at play. He’s ignorant, but speaks as if he knows what he is talking about, passing moral judgments and making slanderous accusations. It is the hallmark of someone who isn’t even trying to find the truth. This is the point I keep making over-and-over again.
It’s not about being 100% right all the time, it’s about the willful failure to even try to find the truth. I’ve corrected him so many times now that I’m starting to lose count, but each time he ignores what I say and just keeps mouthing off about it.
Checking my browser history, only time I visited anything written at SS this month (i.e. since I resumed posting after the cooldown) was to screenshot these comments (here, here, and here) for citation purposes. The rest of the accesses are to comments from back in February, mostly the thirteen links that are shown here (from this article):
Perhaps I’ve missed one or two others, but I’ve done just what I said I would do. I have not yet even caught up with the original backlog.
So, don’t blame me for the Commenter’s propensity to jump to false conclusions.
(Now if those clues are not enough for him to figure out his error, I don’t know what will be)
———————————————————————
As for fisking and fact-checking, remember what he wrote a week or two ago?
“Address that, Derek”
…and…
“You still have not responded to my main points”
…and…
“I doubt Derek will response to any of this…”
…and then there are the very many questions posed to me. I’m still going through those original comments! I’m sure I’ve probably missed dozens more written since then.
———————————————————————
Wait, a quick review of what stats?
Wait, a quick review of what stats?
Mormon divorce statistics, like from here i guess:
https://mormonr.org/qnas/0uQ4aB/latter_day_saint_marriage_and_divorce_statistics
2024[11]
“We sent out 80,000 postcards to Latter-day Saints in the U.S. Here’s what we learned,” Deseret News, January 31, 2024
The divorce rate for temple marriages is 3 times lower than the national divorce rate.
2024[12]
“Applying Moral Foundations Theory to current and former Latter-day Saints,” Deseret News, February 16, 2024
20% of former Latter-day Saints are married to believing members of the Church.
30% of former Latter-day Saints are married to other former Latter-day Saints.
Former Latter-day Saints are twice as likely to have been divorced than Latter-day Saints.
Former Latter-day Saints are more than four times less likely to have had their marriages sealed in the temple compared with current Latter-day Saints.
Maybe Pseudonymous Commenter thinks you’re in cahoots with Boxer(who was a former Mormon) like Jack thought in 2019-like most did with GBFM being in cahoots with Roissy=Heartiste, even though GBFM preached a life of being a classic polymath, being bound by honor for life, and being a Christian while Roissy=Heartiste preached game, always being on the hunt for poon and being a hedonistic agnostic(which better described the many married and divorced MEN reading his blog than even Roissy=Heartiste, let alone GBFM!)
That doesn’t make any sense.
If the Christian Red Pillowsphere was truly concerned about frivolous divorce above any other concern, it would have long since converted to Mormonism, Plain Folk Anabaptism, or Islam, where such things are much rarer.
I’ve never seen the Commenter advocate any of those three things. In fact, we’ve seen the opposite:
So why cite Mormon stats? To what end?
Boxer is probably the only ethnic Mormon I’ve ever known. But, Boxer has vanished, seemingly forever, and with him the Mormon perspective. As far as I know, I’m the only one left with access to his original site:
Speaking of Boxer, the comment section here is a classic that involves certain commenters and the topics we’ve been discussing.
Interesting thread.
I’m a big believer in young marriage. We were still in college when we married, and I lived with his parents for the first year. Which wasn’t easy, to say the least. I mentioned this at Jack’s on that last thread and apparently this is was poor character on my part somehow. But it seems to have worked a lot better than the high fiving all-about-the-meet-cutes-bros experiences.
Liz,
And you should be!
The belief that young marriage is bad is widespread. It’s difficult to get people to accept that the surface-level, first-order interpretations of age-of-marriage data are often the inverse of reality. They just don’t realize how confounded that statistic is (or even what statistical confounding is in the first place).
It only took me nearly seven years to finally write an article that touched on why young marriage is good. But, as you can see from my comment section under my article and the comment sections at Boxer’s blog, the “young marriage is good” idea hasn’t gained any traction in the Dalrockian Manosphere…. so far.
It’s a shame, because telling men to wait—rather than to prepare for marriage ASAP and to move quickly to find someone—is one of the surest ways to ensure that young men will run out the clock on finding a mate.
The irony is that the Manosphere understands how “The Wall” applies to women, but it just completely disregards the analogous phenomenon that applies to its purported primary audience: men.
Peace,
DR
I am of the opinion children learn more by example than lecture.
Hopefully this will result in good relationships for our sons, since we have a very long good relationship together.
So far so good it seems (knock on wood). Might have another daughter in law soon (she just turned 20, her grandparents are her example and they have been together since high school…both professionals, he was a surgeon and she a lawyer, both went to school after marriage and they are both famous in their respective fields…he was my surgeon with the leg lengthening procedure, incidentally. Very small crazy world. If you believe in coincidences at least, which I don’t).
Interesting. My daughter had her limb lengthening done in Florida at the Paley Center by this team of doctors—which includes the renowned Dr. Paley—though lengthening with external (or internal now) fixators is not uncommon elsewhere. I just don’t run into many other people in the wild who have had the procedure!
“though lengthening with external (or internal now) fixators is not uncommon.”
It was very uncommon when I had my surgery in my teens (1989).
He was one of the first to perform the surgery and they only did 50 of the procedures a year in the state of Florida. He brought it over from Italy (Verona, IIRC) which might be how my parents heard about it first (mom bring Italian).
I don’t know. The cases back then had to be extreme and they didn’t perform the procedure on adults yet.
We met up with them in late December in Park City, it was pretty cool to see my surgeon after all these years (of course I can’t remember him and he can’t remember me, I just knew the name).
Huh! We may be connected in a way that I would never have expected. My daughter has had a TSF on multiple occasions. It was apparently invented around 1990 in Memphis, Tennessee. These days it looks like this:
The belief that young marriage is bad is widespread. It’s difficult to get people to accept that the surface-level, first-order interpretations of age-of-marriage data are often the inverse of reality. They just don’t realize how confounded that statistic is (or even what statistical confounding is in the first place).
It only took me nearly seven years to finally write an article that touched on why young marriage is good. But, as you can see from my comment section under my article and the comment sections at Boxer’s blog, the “young marriage is good” idea hasn’t gained any traction in the Dalrockian Manosphere…. so far.
It’s a shame, because telling men to wait—rather than to prepare for marriage ASAP and to move quickly to find someone—is one of the surest ways to ensure that young men will run out the clock on finding a mate.
Could it have anything to do with the manosphere mainly being a place for divorced and married MEN to complain about their ”choices” Derek?
Most of these MEN didn’t grow up as more or less stereotypical ”girls are icky”(reinforced by parents to keep the sexes segregated in public schools mainly and then later they wonder ” Why is little Johnny g@y or having so much trouble with girls or women?”)like was said by the Beaver on Leave it to beaver or Dennis on the Dennis the Menace early 1960s show?
O r worse ”girls are from heaven” nonsense that pseudonym commenter says he was told?
i on the other hand was more neutral or really agnostic on girls. Which is why i neither was against them nor constantly chasing after them.
Unlike this self-described feminist who is against the manosphere nihilistic misogyny she sees here:
https://zawn.substack.com/p/how-manosphere-and-red-pill-ideologies
How manosphere and red pill ideologies doom men to loneliness and unhappy relationships
Red pillers set men up for miserable, sexless relationships with women who hate them.
Feminists like me talk a lot about how the manosphere encourages men to abuse women. But to the men indoctrinated into this cult, this isn’t a reason to avoid red pillers, Andrew Tate, and their unfuckable ilk. These dudes want access to sex and women, and they definitely don’t want to be with feminists, so they’re unlikely to believe what we tell them.
The truth, though, is that manosphere ideology constrains men’s access to women, to sex, to quality relationships, and to hopeful futures. It’s nihilistic misogyny, not feminism, ruining men’s lives.
The typical manosphere loser believes that relationships exist for women to do all of the emotional and physical labor, and for men to earn the money. They see sex as something men are owed, not something men need to be good at, and certainly not something for women’s enjoyment. Women are primarily physical objects and tools to them, not people, which removes their ability to be supportive partners in challenging times. Their misogyny is immediately apparent to women with self-esteem or experience with men.
This limits these men to a small group of women—those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. These characteristics make them more likely to center and be dependent on men, and to have few interests and support outside of the relationship.
Manosphere influencers idealize these relationships. The woman is in her feminine energy. The man is in his masculine energy. It’s laughable bullshit to believe that two people socialized into different ways of being and vastly divergent needs will be able to make a relationship work, but logic never stopped any misogynist from living his best and most foolish life.
So what really happens when people are strongly in their [completely BS , totally made up] masculine and feminine energies in a relationship?
Some of that does make sense though, huh?
This limits these men to a small group of women—those who are young, with low self-esteem (and often the trauma and mental health challenges that accompany it), and with few career ambitions. ”
this part doesn’t make sense, especially” the young ” part, when most manosphere guys are too scared to talk to anyone outside of the online manosphere in fear of being ”criticized or discredited.”
“Boys are lied to”.
Whew.
Sure am glad girls are never lied to growing up.
Well…if they are the poor results are of course their own fault because (unlike boys) they know everything at birth. Also, they know nothing.
That about covers it.
This is part of the problem of the Dalrockian manosphere as stated here by our bro Pseudonymous Commenter:
Pseudonymous Commenter says:
July 6, 2018 at 10:59 am
No man should even consider marriage until he’s done with school, earning some money, and has some experience with women under his belt. That’s at least, AT LEAST, age 25, and I’d argue putting off to 28 is better. I was 28 when I got married and I STILL wasn’t ready. Of course, I was firmly Blue Pill then, and veterans of the sphere know my story.
When the ”anti-feminist” guys talk like Elizabeth Cady Stanton,you know something is amiss.
https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/stanton-our-girls-speech-text/
Again no girl should marry until she is at least twenty five years of age as she does not reach physical maturity before that time. Thus many years could be devoted to reading, thought and study, to a preparation for that higher companionship of the spirit and intellect with pure, cultivated, scholarly men.-Elizabeth Cady Stanton
See how Pseudonymous Commenter {as does his bros Pseudonymous Commenter Taiwan &Pseudonymous Commenter Oscar from the odd couple(to protect his identity who think girls have to be at least 18 to sanctityly marry-like their Satanic feminist overlords preach )} agrees with one of the two mothers of Satanic Feminism when it was called women rights and suffrage?
i really have to tell Derek my own parents were still teenagers when they got married?
As he should have known all along.