The Marxist Dialectic of The Family: Part II - Marriage 1.5 versus The Second Wave

Part I
.

.
Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in Part I of this series, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm, thus voiding one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was enacted there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” But let’s make no mistake, if a woman wanted a divorce she could get one. Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

The word cruelty was an undefined term that much resembles the word “abuse” today because almost anything could be construed as cruelty. An argument that made her cry could be deemed cruel. Not paying enough attention to her could be deemed cruel. Well, you get the idea. Just look at how many things today are classified as “abuse” which really wouldn’t be claimed as abuse anywhere else in society except in male-female relationships. Take that meaning of abuse and simply replace it with the word “cruelty” and you’ve pretty much got the spirit behind the system. Over years of having a relationship with someone else, it is pretty easy to find something that can be considered abuse or cruelty in one way or another. So, what happened in divorce cases before No-Fault Divorce was that a trial occurred to prove the husband was “cruel” and therefore, a divorce ought to be granted. This caused much dragging out of people’s dirty laundry and it was pretty much a joke. Belfort Bax referred to the “cruelty” argument for divorce as a complete sham over a century ago already, indicating that it was all about taking normal human interactions and having a lawyer twist things around to portray the husband as some heinous monster when the reality was far from it. No-Fault Divorce was really more about not making lawyers and judges into hypocrites for orchestrating such a charade and simply saying, “Give her the damn divorce already and let’s just get it over with.” Women have always gotten what they wanted from the courts when her adversary was a man. Dropping the need to prove “cruelty” simply streamlined the process and stopped making the courts look like such hypocrites.  

“Prior to 1970, the law usually justified its wrecking of families on the grounds either of adultery or of “extreme cruelty.” The sexual revolution has now made adultery a right for women (“a woman’s sacred right to control her own body”); extreme cruelty was usually understood to be a legal fiction meaning no more than that one of the spouses, usually the wife, wanted out. The pretense that the husband was an extremely cruel man was in most cases sufficiently absurd that it embarrassed even judges and lawyers and it was felt necessary to “reform” divorce by perpetuating the same destruction of families under a new terminology. This is called No Fault divorce. There were label switchings. Divorce was renamed Dissolution of Marriage. The Plaintiff was renamed the Petitioner. The Defendant was renamed the Respondent. Alimony was renamed Spousal Support (the ex-wife was no longer a spouse, but calling her one “justifies” taking the man’s money). The real core of the change is that it was no longer necessary to “prove” extreme cruelty to inflict upon the husband a more severe penalty than is imposed on most low-income black male felons.” – Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p.215

As you can see, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce certainly helped to fuel the divorce craze by streamlining the process, it was definitely not the sole cause of the break-down of the family... so, what other factors were involved?
.

.
One of those answers can be found in the present day, as our great altruistic feminist sisters attempt to "help" the women of the third world. There is a feminist propaganda advertisement that appears here in Canada on a regular basis which particularly irks me because of its blatant lying right off the bat. The feminist organization CARE put on the ad which starts off by saying something along the lines of "No-one can understand a woman's life in the third world better than another woman anywhere in the world." It's such an obvious slap in the face to not only men in general, but also to bloody common-sense. They mean to tell us that a woman working at her NGO job and living in a high-rise condo in downtown Vancouver has a better ability to understand the life of an impoverished woman in the third world collecting and burning camel-dung over an open fire in her mud-hut better than her husband, sons and fellow countrymen do? It's just bloody absurd on the face of it, so I once perused their site and here is what I found: "When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children." Now, don't get me wrong. I don't particularly have a problem with girls receiving an education, but what I am pointing out is that feminists know that what they are doing is altering the conditions of the nuclear family by pushing women into the workforce where they will be directly competing with men. Of course, the same website claims that women put 90% of their income back into their families but makes no mention of the percentage of income the men put back into their families (Do the men spend 50% of their income at the local tavern and the other 50% wagering on cock-fighting in the alleyway?) Nor does it indicate what kind of families they are talking about. Do they mean husband-wife & children families, or are they discussing female & children families?

You only have to look at our recent economic crisis of 2008/09 to see what feminists consider "family." While men lost their jobs in significantly larger numbers than women, when job recovery began to occur, feminists started complaining that men were getting re-hired in larger numbers than women. (Kinda makes sense, eh? If three times as many men lost jobs as women, a similar ratio of men ought to be re-hired during a recovery - except in femi-supremacist 50/50 land). Then, feminists tried to claim that men were receiving hiring preference because they had families to care for and complained because women had families they were providing for too! Yes indeed, but the difference is what kind of families we are talking about. A man providing for his family generally means that the man, his wife, and their children all get food put on the table whereas for the most part, when a woman provides for her family, they mean there is food on the table for the single/divorced mom and her children. There is no man being provided for in this equation. Women don't care for men - they care for themselves and their children. A single mom "family" leaves the male out of the equation, where he starves on the street corner alone - it certainly does not lead to general economic improvement if the male gender is left to suffer in poverty separately from families. In the traditional nuclear family, men, women and children receive the benefits of the man's labour but in the new single-mother "family," only women and children receive benefits. The men just magically vanish to... who knows where?

The radical feminists of the Second Wave understood this as well:

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
.

A significant factor in our culture which led to the destruction of the family was women entering the workforce en-masse in the 1970's and 1980's. Whereas Briffault's Law was undermined by the Suffragettes transferring presumed Father-Custody into Mother-Custody with the Tender Years Doctrine in the 19th Century, Second Wave feminists undermined hypergamy by encouraging women to abandon their traditional roles and compete directly with men in the workplace. Previously, a woman's standard of living significantly improved upon marriage as men were socially conditioned to work like mules to provide for their families. After the second wave arrived, women were encouraged to "have it all" and be both high-earning career chicks and brave single-mother-victims at the same time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with women aspiring to do something more than live up to traditional sex-roles, but overall in our culture, women have merely cooked the Golden Goose by insisting on pursuing their dreams and aspirations. Yes, they want a high-flying career so they have money, but they also want their work to be socially beneficial (who doesn't?) and they also want their careers to be flexible enough to allow them plenty of time to spend with their families - not necessarily hers and her husband's family. They had all of that in spades before Second Wave feminism appeared on the scene, but were convinced by feminists that it wasn't good enough for them. Like greedy children, they had to have it all! 

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
.

.
Second Wave feminism made no bones about their goals to destroy marriage, believing that true equality for women could not be achieved in the nuclear family. They pushed women into the workforce en-masse because they knew doing so would undermine one of the major reasons women entered into the institution of marriage in the first place - access to the husband's paycheck along with the higher standard of living he provided. This massive entry of women into the workforce where they began directly competing with men for their traditional roles likely had far more to do with undermining marriage than the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws, which merely streamlined a trend that had been happening for a century already.
      
Also, the Second Wave did everything they could to destroy "the mating dance" between men and women. Men are the designated initiators in sexual relations. Women attract and men pursue. That's just the way it is. However, just because men are the designated overt initiators does not mean that women are innocent little darlings, simply fending off multitudes of horny men at every corner. They are just as complicit in the mating dance as males.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization. (Note: This is similar to mating behaviour in other mammals, like rats).

Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.

Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect. -- Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University
.

.

.
Thus, the old saying, "He chases her until she catches him." Kinda makes you wonder what the whole feminist campaign about "No Means No!" was about in the 1990's, doesn't it? Some studies have indicated that in a typical male-female sexual encounter, the woman will give off up to 150 rejections, either verbally, physically, with eye gestures, and so on, until finally saying "yes" to sexually accepting the man as a mate. Quite obviously, "no" only means no when a man says it. These types of campaigns were designed to drive to the sexes apart by monkeying with the basics of the mating dance - which women insist on perpetuating, no matter how much men get criminalized for doing what she desires in the process.

A similar thing has happened in the workplace where women once often found a husband. Today, after a plethora of sexual harassment laws being introduced into the workplace, anyone in a position of power could get into no end of trouble for trying to woo a woman who is subordinate to him - yet, women in the past often married their bosses. Remember, women are hypergamous and seek out men who are more powerful and wealthier than they are, thus, it is natural for a woman herself to be attracted to someone in a position of authority over her. But, since men are the designated initiators in the mating dance while women always hide behind plausible deniability, it is the male's part of the dance that had to be outlawed in order to drive the sexes apart. When desiring women is outlawed, only outlaws will desire women.
.

.
The William Heatherington Spousal Rape Trial in the mid-1980's was the final death-knell for any semblance of marriage resembling that which had existed for millenia before in our culture. Not only was this trial a complete mockery of justice but it undermined the very basis for marriage, which was a vehicle to contain human sexuality and channel it positively into something that benefited both families and society. This was the end of expecting that sexual relations were to be a part of marriage. If your wife - your lifelong mate - is no more of your expected sexual partner than a strange woman you have just met at the pub whom you have to woo and game into having "intimate relations"... then what is the point of setting up a legal framework such as marriage to contain two people's sexuality into the institution in the first place? Keep in mind as well, like Daniel Amneus pointed out in the quote at the beginning of this article, the sexual revolution had also made adultery a "right" for women (her sacred right to control her own body). If there is no expectation of either sex for the husband, nor the expectation for sexual fidelity in marriage... then... um... what is the point of a marriage? It has been deconstructed into basically nothing at all.

The above points I have addressed in this post are but a brief synopsis of how feminism sought to undermine the institution of marriage and drive the sexes apart. There are, of course, dozens, if not hundreds of other examples that could be used, but that would also make this piece into a full dissertation rather than an article for a blog post. The points I am trying to get at here is that while No-Fault Divorce certainly had an effect on our cultural values towards marriage and family, it more or less simply streamlined a process that had been well underway for a century before. The real insidious aspects of Second Wave Feminism were more about undermining the basics of male-female attraction. Many men who are reading this are at least somewhat familiar with the principles of game and as you can see, much of what was going on was the deliberate undermining of men's and women's natural hetero-sexuality, making it as difficult as possible for them to get together and form unions the way they had done for centuries already in our culture and it ultimately left us with what we today call Marriage 2.0, a fraudulent contract that in no way resembles anything of marriage 1.0. Basically men who get blindsided into signing on the marital dotted line are left as virtual slaves to their wives, unattractive in any way to their spouse's sexual desires, and without any benefit for themselves to look forward to but the peaceful slumber of death.     
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Bull Herding in the MRM

Have you ever seen a herd of bulls? Neither have I. It is the anti-thesis of all things "male" to become like a herd. Herds are the nature of females, not males. Yet, whenever talk arises of what men should do about the Gender War, the first thing everyone shrieks for is "unity." Often we hear criticism amongst men themselves that the Men's Movement is not a "real movement" because it does not resemble the feminist movement. "See! Men don't have vast lobby groups, therefore they aren't a movement. And look! Men aren't burning their gonchies in rallies numbering in the thousands, therefore there is no 'Men's Movement.'" It really goes to show how feminized our entire culture has become that men, in response to women's excesses, would actually try to emulate female behaviour in order to ameliorate their grievances.

There is a lot of confusion about what Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) means. Some define it as the marriage strike, others call it swearing off women altogether, and yet others will claim it means becoming a hermit and shunning society. I have been involved in MGTOW since close to its inception and as such I also have come to know several of the people who founded it as a concept. MGTOW is not a "movement" so much as it is a cultural and philosophical observation about men's behaviour. Men have been unable to find unity in their response to feminist tyranny. Lots of men agree things have gone way too far, but that is essentially where the agreement ends. Men are individual creatures, not herd creatures, and as such they have not "unified" in a front against feminism. In fact, if you look around the MRM, what you will find are hosts of "armies of one." What happens is that some men eventually get fed-up waiting for others to get their shit together and just go out and start doing things on their own. Virtually all progress, research, articles and websites in the MRM are the result of an "Army of One." In fact, this very website you are reading is the result of an army of one - my own. MGTOW, at its inception, was an observation that each man was "going his own way" and failing to unify like a herd of feminists would. It is in the nature of males to do so, just as it is in the nature of males to observe the Truth about such behaviour and work with it rather than try to cover it up.

Let me ask you, how can men fight to save masculinity by adopting feminine traits? Wouldn't doing so nullify the entire notion of masculinity and make us into mere women with penises? Men do not unify as herds and they do not make nearly as good of victims as women do. The MRM has been trying this abomination of nature for several decades now, whether arguing about DV shelters for men or for men's "right" to be a house-husband supported by his wife's earnings (AKA a "kitchen bitch"). It always fails, thankfully, because it goes against nature. As of yet, masculinity has not been destroyed, and once men recognize the difference between masculine principles and feminine principles, they tend to say, "The hell with you all, I'm going my own way."

Female Power versus Male Power 

Women are lying when they claim they had no power in the past. We may not have accurately described female power but this is actually in keeping with the feminine: All things female are covert while the male is overt, and so it is that female power in society is also covert. Although it is true that men have held most overt positions of power in the past, one must keep in mind that they were only permitted to do so because society socially condoned such practices. Society (ie. the herd) falls under the domain of the female principle and further, our social mores are controlled by women. What women want, society wants. What women find socially acceptable, society finds socially acceptable. Women have enormous social power while men have very little.

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson 

Over 100 years ago, E. Belfort Bax was writing how a man could never expect to receive justice from a court of law when his adversary was a woman. Justice is only achieved between a man and another man, and the only time a woman receives punishment from the court is when she has done something to harm another woman. When it comes down to man versus woman, the woman always fares better. This is not something new that has arisen recently, as you can see, but rather is something that is innate to humans. Everywhere in nature, males are the servants of the female. Furthermore, women have spent the past several thousand years evolving to better manipulate males to do their bidding.

"A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretense." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

What men do with their positions of "power" in society is serve the needs of the female. Even the so-called "oppressive" things of patriarchy past were done for women's benefit. Take the practice of placing all of a woman's property holdings into the husband's name upon marriage. While feminists claim this was indicative of women being "non-persons," what it actually did was benefit women enormously. Women are hypergamous by nature and as such, seek out men who are more powerful and have more resources than they themselves have. Thus, upon marriage, the male's property holdings were generally much greater than the female's, and by combining the two upon marriage the female received the right to her husband's property. If wives could maintain property outside of marriage, then it stands that so could husbands. If property were able to remain legally outside of marriage then women wouldn't be able to fully take advantage of men's higher provisioning abilities. It was in the wife's best interest for her property to be co-joined in such ways. Wouldn't you agree to co-join your assets with Bill Gates if it meant you gained access to his fortune and further, received inheritance rights to it upon his death? Since it was ultimately in women's favour for it to be handled this way, society condoned it.

The introduction of labour laws, such as limiting the work-day for women and children to a maximum of eight hours, was done for their benefit. Men still had to work long, hard days in the fields and mine shafts, but society thought it wrong that women should spend lengthy days in the hazardous conditions of the workplace, and so laws were enacted to protect women - not men - from such harsh conditions. Feminists, in their hate-fueled rage against nature, have tried to complain that such acts were the result of an evil patriarchy conspiring to hold women back, but they are plain and simply lying. In fact, as Angry Harry points out in his two excellent pieces, Women - Weak and Pathetic? and Did Women Really Want to Go Out to Work?, it was women who fueled such movements as it was considered by society (ie. women) that women leaving the workplace was a great step forward for womankind, and so, because women socially condoned it, that's what happened. Here is an extract describing the situation, from David Thomas' book Not Guilty:   

The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure."
  
Further evidence to support this position is provided by a 1936 Gallup Poll asking a national sample, "Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not. However, a few decades later, women decided that they belonged in the workplace again and, as Esther Villar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, in very short order, the laws changed by the early 1960's to grant women equal pay and opportunity with men in the workplace - and of course they blamed it all on men, even though it was women themselves that had earlier condoned lesser pay for women and encouraged men to be the sole breadwinner so that women could leave the workplace. As you can see, in each case, what women wanted, society wanted, and thus it came into being. Men were just the tools who facilitated society's (women's) desires.

"Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." – Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile

Men's power comes from conquering the outside world while women's power comes from conquering the will of man and encouraging him to willfully surrender his power unto her when it suits her purpose. Think about how women claim they were powerless because for a few decades they didn't have the vote. Did they pick up guns and overthrow society to get their way? Nope, they bitched and moaned and cajoled men into doing their bidding. They did the same things with the Temperance Movement. Women decided what was socially acceptable, and then harassed men into doing their bidding - and the men did it! Women's social power is enormous and far outweighs men's social power. Men are playing a fool's game if they think they can compete with women on this level, for that is where the heart of female power lies. Men are as horribly outmatched by women on this level as women would be if they deemed to "overthrow men" by lifting weights and taking boxing lessons in an attempt to physically subdue them. Why should men then try to form a movement on the basis of the female principle when it is under this very principle that men have little ability to compete? Seems pretty stupid to me and it can only lead to disaster. Much of this warped thinking is still based in the false Boomer-topian ideology that men and women are essentially the same, save but for externally imposed "social constructs." This is a false ideology and as such, actions based upon it can only lead to false conclusions. A "men's movement" must reflect male principles rather than female principles. Herds of bulls do not roam the countryside. 
    
"We Must Get Women On-board!"  

This is one of the most common arguments the Men's Movement has made over the past decades. Those who make the argument are both right and wrong at the same time. As I have pointed out, women control our social mores, therefore, in order for society to improve the conditions of men and end the Gender War, women must want the conditions of men to improve. Not much happens that women don't approve of.

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

The mistake "the movement" has continually made is falling for the notion that men and women are essentially the same and therefore what makes sense to men also must make sense to women. Men are based upon principle and logic and therefore continually appeal to women from a position of justice. This is the wrong tactic to take with women, for as has been pointed out throughout history, women have no sense of justice.

"...women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.(9) So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no 'sense of justice.'” -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

It makes no sense to appeal to women's "sense of justice" when such a thing is foreign to the female principle in the first place. Furthermore, women have very little ability to empathize with men.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

There is a hierarchy in how our society "works." It looks like this:

God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children --> Puppies

Men care for themselves, women and children, while women care for themselves and children. It does not work in reverse. Men expecting women to empathize with their plight are just as foolish as parents expecting children to empathize with them and "do the right thing" simply because it is the right thing to do. Both will be waiting for a loooooong time before nature re-orders itself in such a way. Appealing to women's sense of justice, or arguing with women by use of logic, is a fool's errand for women aren't creatures of logic in the first place, but rather are creatures of emotion and self-fueled narcissism.
  
Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships.

-- a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Relations between the sexes were originally set up as an economic contract whereby men and women both mutually benefited from interacting with each-other in lifelong marriage. Granted, in almost every situation one can find, women benefited far more than men, but this is the nature of human relations. It has always been a 60/40 deal in favour of women, but the difference between the "bad old days" of yesterday's patriarchy and our modern embracing of matriarchy is that the culture used to have a “carrot and stick” approach – if you were a good beta provider you got 1) sex, 2) family stability and intimacy, 3) children you could pretty well count on being your own, and 4) social respectability.

Then women and the culture said, “To hell with the carrot, gimme two sticks!” and figured they could keep browbeating men into living up to their old roles while at the same time browbeating men for living up to those roles. Since the advent of marital rape laws, there is no longer an expectation of "sexual relations" within marriage. Family stability has been eroded by the divorce culture which ultimately was born out of transferring presumed custody of children from the father to the mother back in the 19th Century. We are told today that "all children are legitimate" and in fact, men are forced by law to support children that women have cuckolded them with. And finally, the social respectability of being a family man has been completely undermined by a culture that portrays fathers as buffoons whose wives and children have to constantly tolerate their endless social blunders and ineptness in handling all things about them. Yet, somehow, women's illogical brains still seem to think that men will continue to live up to their old roles and "man up" to keep women happy and floating in money and trinkets. Women don't understand The Law of Cause and Effect very well.

Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None

As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, MGTOW is not so much of a "movement" as it is a cultural and philosophical observation of how men are responding to the society which surrounds them. Men are not herd creatures like women. They do not band together and beg for sympathy as women do. Men are far more individualistic than women and they are also far more adaptable. And this is what men are doing - they are adapting to the changes in our culture. Several distinct strategies have emerged for men which they choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace, quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining, pissing and moaning, he becomes a Ghost. If he wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife. In other words, as far as our culture goes, men are "going their own way" whether we like it or not. There are millions of "wildcat strikes of one" in which men are acting upon their own individual, adaptive choices. These numerous individual choices eventually culminate themselves into a "movement" that can't really be defined as a "movement" but certainly does have an impact upon the situation of larger society.

Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the government to do squat for them. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.

Appeals to women's sense of justice and pleas for sympathy continually fall upon the deaf ears of women, for women only have empathy for themselves and their children. Women will not change this until the situation impacts them directly. The battle between the female principle and the male principle always works in this manner - it is like the Yin and the Yang - one overtakes the other until the other overtakes the first again. The male principle is responding to the excesses of the female principle, and it is doing so in its uniquely male way - the opposite of the female herding instinct - by being individuals who take action, or sometimes non-action, and doing what serves men the best in the situation they are presented with. Sure, sure. This cannot go on forever, as if men and women fail to get together and create future men and women, the human race will not go on. But you know what? It is not solely men's problem. Women are complicit in our society's social structuring and when men's withdrawal from our historical role begins to impact women directly, they will change things to re-empower men so fast that there won't be any way to stop them... of course, they will blame men for it along the way - it is what women have always done.

We live in a false sexual economy that is propped up by excessive government interference. Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. Once the government can no longer adequately provide for them - as is fast becoming the case as our Boomer-topian cultures financially struggle to keep from collapsing under the weight of female inspired socialism - women will turn on a dime and insist that men live up to roles that suit women's purposes again - and they will take away the two sticks and provide a carrot again if it so suits their purposes, not men's. However, the carrot will likely have to be presented amidst a delicious stew with beef, onions and other tasty morsels in order for men to willingly don the yoke of "patriarchy" again. Until women come around to this conclusion, and devise their own plan for enticing us back, men should let them change their own damn oil and continue to follow the male principle by Going Their Own Way.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Very Few Women Are Capable Of Empathizing With Men

.
Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.

This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women. Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man."

What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do.

Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around. It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children.

Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations.

We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time.

You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him."

That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be. Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.

Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.

Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's wants are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit.

This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.

It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same. It's not going to change. These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Further Reading: 

Who Is More Empathic; Men or Women -- by Angry Harry

Empathy -- The Rational Male 

There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch!

The following list was written by William J.H. Boetker, a Presbyterian minister, in 1942:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

Guide to Birdwatching in the Manosphere

Many men love to stroll through the lush forests of the Manosphere, as there is much to see and behold. One can find all sorts of things, from young saplings yearning to reach the open sky, to mighty sequoias offering a sense of security in their strength, along with respite from the outer heat within the ambiance of their shade.
.

.
As one walks through this unique atmosphere, it is quite common to hear the chirping of several different types of birds. The birds are part of the forest and therefore I would like to provide the following Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere.

.

One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. “Her home cuisine is delicious,” she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.
.

.
The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that "he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!" Her song goes something like this: "Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!"

The Elusive Wife appears to support men's issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within "The Movement" will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women's every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife's husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.

.

The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men's issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.

.

Another species which may appear is from the genus Mountainous Mammarious. You can tell a Mountainous Mammarious is in your neck of the woods because of her distinctive call, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!"
.

.

She too fully believes in men's issues, and that's why she plunks her self-described Victoria Secret satin pantied ass (page 9, item C), right in the midst of as many men as she can find. She brightens up the whole board with her cheerful song, "DEE DEE! DEE DEE!" which is interspersed amongst every comment she makes.

.

She agrees with everything and befriends all. She often provides some useful services to humanity, like informing men of what it is like to grow breasts, menstruate, or have an ovary removed. The only thing she complains about is how uncomfortable it is to always have her lacy, Victoria Secret brassiere straps (page 11, item B) cutting into her back, due to the imbalanced weight proportioned towards her front. You see, she helps men better understand things from a woman's perspective. She flits in and out of blogs and forums, always spreading her good will towards her new found friends, and of course, announcing her arrivals and departures with her cheerful song, "DEE, DEE! DEE, DEE... Dee, Dee... Deeeee, deeeee....”

.

A third species of woman is rather an interesting one which is called Meritorious Mediocrus in Latin. Meritorious Mediocrus is perceived as a great Amazon bird of prey to many of those within men’s circles. Tales of her exploits become legendary and her name is revered wherever she goes. Even in far away lands, children are regaled with stories about the brave and mighty Meritorious Mediocrus.
.

.
There is a natural problem built within the species Meritorious Mediocrus though, and this is why some experts wish to rename this bird as Annika Sorenstamus. You see, Meritorious Mediocrus gets an enormous amount of attention for placing 96th out of 111, simply for being a woman. No-one knows who was 97th, 95th or even 5th - but everyone knows when Meritorious Mediocrus places in the bottom 15% of the field, and she receives gratuitous adulation for her accomplishments.

.

We see this same phenomenon all throughout society. A woman accomplishes something "great" simply by becoming, say, a firefighter. In fact, a newspaper story might appear on the front page because of this particular example of a Meritorious Mediocrus, and sumptuously entertain the readers with her heroism in becoming a firefighter. A man, however, who is stronger, faster and has fifteen years experience on her, will not receive any praise for his "accomplishments" unless he charges fearlessly into a blazing orphanage and single handedly rescues a dozen toddlers. Then of course, when he is done, he sees a little girl crying that her kitten is still trapped inside. So the male firefighter again gallantly dashes into the inferno, intending to rescue the kitten, only for the entire building to collapse upon him, killing him instantly. That story will make the eighth page in the same newspaper.

.

The problem with Meritorious Mediocrus stems from her fame and influence far outstripping her insights and accomplishments. The effect of this is that the lower end of the spectrum tends to have a louder, more influential voice than the higher end of the spectrum. And somehow, there is just something not right about that. It’s like the natural hierarchy of the universe gets turned upside down.

.

The fourth type of bird one may encounter hails from the species of Achievus Consensus. This bird's entire purpose in life seems to revolve around convincing men that they will accomplish absolutely nothing unless they manage to get women onboard. (She might cite examples of how men completely failed to create a civilization because women didn't participate). As absurd as it sounds to an outsider, Achievus Consensus has some kind of magical hypnotism in her song that makes men agree that, indeed, no flock of sheep can properly succeed without a sufficient number of wolves in its midst.
.

.
Despite her hypnotic melody, however, when one digs deeper down it becomes apparent that while Achievus Consensus knows a few peripheral issues, when push comes to shove she knows nothing of substance. Biologists often argue whether Achievus Consensus is from the greater Cuckoo genus or if she is just a crossbreed of the Elusive Wife and the Meritorious Mediocrus.

.

There is a good case to be made for the crossbreed theory of Achievus Consensus in that she is sometimes very active like the Meritorious Mediocrus while at the same time displaying some traits of the Elusive Wife. She never lets you forget how much she is doing for your benefit while at the same time reminding you that she, and other women, are not all like that.

.

I, however, tend to agree more with the theory that Achievus Consensus is a sub-species of the Cuckoo because of her continual shaming references to what other women, not her, think about our views. The Cuckoo theory is further backed up in that the Achievus Consensus seems stuck on the belief that men somehow have to convince women to let them do want they want. Achievus Consensus talks like men are small children who need to ask Mom's permission to play outside after supper.

.

Now, although I am describing several completely different species here, one should not forget that they are still from the same overall family within the animal kingdom. This reality is starkly revealed when a man dares to challenge one of them. The flocking instinct of these creatures automatically kicks in and they all gather together, descending upon the transgressing man as if in a scene from Hitchcock's The Birds.
.

.
Of course, men rarely stick up for other men at the best of times, so the offending man is often left outnumbered. Even worse, some of the other men in the near vicinity were lured in by the message of the Elusive Wife, because she always sings of a dream which he once had, but never attained. Other men are still thinking about the Mountainous Mammarious' Victoria Secret satin panties, which he looked up online after she let it "slip" that they were the ones one Page 9, Item C. Several men will have enormous respect for the achievements of Meritorious Mediocrus, thinking those achievements make her above reproach, while others are still in a hypnotic trance from listening to the song of Achievus Consensus, who has been admonishing them to get women onboard so "they can accomplish something."

.

The result?

.

Well, no other man will dare speak up once he sees how all the birds attack, as if eagles plucking at Prometheus' liver, and more, how few of the other men will even try to shoo the eagles away.
.

.
Soon, all the men are "kept in line" and with everything they write there will be a subconscious concern that the women will be offended. In a month or two, the men are posting less and less while the women are posting more and more, until the few women begin dominating the conversations of the many men.

.

Now, a men’s forum may try to counter this by creating a "sub-forum" that only allows entrance to men, so they can speak freely without concern of offending the women... but, come on now... a few women show up on a men's forum, and that forces all of the men into a private room in the back? How often have we seen that happen in society? I am starting to find forums with too many women on them to be an excellent way to gauge what happens in the greater society when women show up. Once a forum has gotten that far, it is quite literally, for the birds. Society is no different. Have a look at our governments.
.

.
There are two other types of birds that may appear as well.
.
The first is the much touted Odd Duck. (She is easiest to notice by the characteristics of reading much and talking little). Similarities to her extend well out of the bird family and into other parts of the Animal Kingdom. Take piglets, for example. Every litter of piglets has a runt that is odd. However, it is the other piglets that make the runt to be odd. And so it is with the Odd Duck in the Bird Family. What makes her odd are the other ducks, and how her behaviour is different from the normal behaviour of ducks. Therefore, in no way ought she be classified as an entire species of her own. And thus, I feel justified in talking little more about Odd Ducks.
.

.
The final bird one will encounter is the Cawing Crow. These birds are hardly a rarity though, and you need not be within the rich splendor of the Manosphere to find them. In fact, these birds are so common that many men report sighting them in their own backyards!
.

.
There is no beauty in the song of the Cawing Crow. In fact, you downright hate the sound; it's just so damn irritating!

.

Everybody else hates the sound too, and that's why nobody in the Manosphere complains much when you take out that weak, old BB gun which your dad gave you for your 12th birthday and start taking potshots at it.

.

"Ping!"

.

You bounce a BB off the Cawing Crow's tail feathers and she flies away.

.

You would think that would be it, and the Cawing Crow would have learned a lesson... but, alas, what do you hear out your window again tomorrow?

.

"Caw, Caw!"

.

"Damn irritating Cawing Crow," you exclaim, grabbing your BB gun as you rush out the door in your socks.

.

"Pow!" You let off a shot and see a few black feathers erupt into the air as the Cawing Crow takes flight with a stinging in her side.
.

.
The next day? Sure enough, there’s the Cawing Crow again, irritating you with a song akin to nails on a chalkboard.

.

"Pow! Pow! Pow!"

.

You hit your target with all three, but this time the Cawing Crow does not fly away. She has learned that the BB's won't kill her but will just bounce off her thick feathers, even if they do sting a bit.

.

Soon it becomes almost like a game between you and the Cawing Crow, and she shows up daily knowing full well that she will be greeted by multiple potshots at her. Yet, she keeps showing up, day after day.

.

You have a BBQ one day in the backyard with several of your friends, and they have heard your amazing tale of the Cawing Crow that never goes away - so they each bring their own BB guns along to the BBQ.

.
"Pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, PING!" Volleys of shots fly at the Cawing Crow, most hitting their mark, and yet, she still doesn't fly away!

.

Wtf?

.

"What's the point?" one might ask. "You are not accomplishing anything."

.

Well, there is a point. You are becoming one hell of a good shot, and the Cawing Crow has helped you to become skilled at picking off a target with that weak, old BB gun from a considerable distance.
.

.
Compared to the other birds, the Cawing Crow is at least serving a purpose that is valuable to the MRM. I would rather have ten Cawing Crows than one Elusive Wife, one Mountainous Mammarious, one Meritorious Mediocrus and one Achievus Consensus.

.

At least with the Cawing Crow, you both know where you stand, and after a while you have to grant the Cawing Crow a certain amount of respect, if only strictly for the amount of abuse she is willing to take while still coming back for more.

.

Hey, I never said that the Cawing Crow was the smartest bird, only that you have to respect its temerity to some degree.

.
And this, gentlemen, brings us to the end of our Guide to Bird Watching in the Manosphere. Be sure to keep your ears open for their songs and your eyes sharp to spot their various distinguishing traits, so that you may pass on any sightings to your fellow travelers in the Manosphere.
.

Previous Index Next 

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

Great Zingers

"Save a male. Stop a wedding!"

"Marriage is like a boring dinner that lasts your whole life and had dessert at the beginning."

"[Marriage is] like serving time in prison with a big fat cellmate who DOESN’T want to have sex with you."

"Zeus made this supreme evil—woman: even though she seem to be a blessing, when a man has wedded one she becomes a plague."-- Semonides of Amorgos, The Types of Women, c. 550 B.C.

"My life sucks but my wife certainly doesn’t."

"Marriage is like putting your hand into a bag of snakes in the hope of pulling out an eel." -- Leonardo da Vinci

"Ever see the old Twilight Zone where the little boy has psychic powers and he can torture and kill anyone with a thought? That’s the power no fault divorce gives to any woman you are foolish enough to marry. How many people can be trusted with that kind of power?"

Q: If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the front door, who do you let in first?
A: The dog of course…at least he’ll shut up after you let him in.

"Bigamy is having one wife too many. Some say monogamy is the same."

"Women are like elephants to me. I like to look at them, but I wouldn't want to own one." -- W.C. Fields

"Amanda Marcotte really is insanely creepy. She really does freak me out!" 
"Yes, she even frightens tampons."  

"You are determined to be married as soon as possible, and advise me to the same. No, thank ye .. Many and great are the comforts of a single state." -- Thomas Jefferson - Random Remarks as a Young Man

"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

"A man who compromises when he’s wrong is wise; a man who compromises when he’s right is married."

"When my wife suggests that I am not doing my share of the “housework” (actually, she means cleaning), I point out that it is my job to keep us both from being eaten by bears. So far, I have a perfect record."

"Meanwhile, as long as there's one honest woman living at the temple atop Mount NAWALT in Tibet..."

"Every day for the past thirty years, you high-heeled pit-bulls have blamed us for everything; from not being able to get into Harvard, to not being able to get into stretch-pants." -- Al Bundy

"Gloria Steinem is Darth Vader and Andrea Dworkin was Jabba the Hut

That is brutally unfair to Jabba the Hutt."

"Intellectual rigor is male thinking. Female thinking is I have a degree and you don't. The fact that you passed up a full scholarship to MIT at 14 and she has a degree in fashion magazine hoarding from the Utah community college of nail design does not come into play."

"My god, Machiavelli was right. Control or be controlled, it's that simple."

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." -- Victor Hugo

"Depopulate the earth? I agree. You first."

"Tolerance is how far a mechanical part can deviate from the norm before it screws up the entire machine." -- Any Mechanic

[Regarding the look of a metro-sexual]: "That dude is responsible for his own choices. Women can't be blamed for everything."

"I don't know what the scholars will think of it. Nor do I care. I'm not writing for them. I'm writing for Canadians."

"This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio - "You don't speak for me!"

"We've been able to train Frenchmen to play hockey, which is more than any European has been able to do."

"I don’t need women, as the government fucks me on a daily basis."

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"
A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

"I don't think I've seen anyone storm the gates of hell before. Can I hold your coat?"

“Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity.” -- Marshall McLuhan

"This is not intended as an ad hominem, it’s intended as an insult."

"But there we are, what do I know, eh? I am just a poor lonesome country boy with nothing but chicken wire to sit on and a rusty old marble to play with."

“The Gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now, and we will never be here again” – Achilles in Troy

"The White-Knight is strong in that one." - Aurini 

The Keynesian Sexual Marketplace

.
(This article was originally written in reference to an article which featured an interview with well-known PUA, Neil Strauss, who boldly stated his support for feminism - it caused a tizzy in the manosphere at the time, since many felt it is not possible to be pro-game and pro-feminist.)
.
The art of seduction, commonly known as "game," has become a big focus in the manosphere over the past few years. I would like to make clear that I believe many of the elements of game are real and I agree that men should know about the attraction triggers of women. Game is essential to understanding the problems that we face as men in society. Without this knowledge, men will continue to be run around in circles, never getting anywhere – as has been evidenced over the past forty years. However, I learned about game in a bit different of a way than most. First, I learned via observation and through two friends of mine who both had extremely high partner counts - one I estimate has slept with 200 people and the other I suspect is in the 400 range. (Both are 40'ish now and the numbers add up over the decades). Things like social proofing and increasing one's sexual market value by "climbing" from one chick to the next I had figured out on my own by the late 1990's. But it wasn't until I read the Book of Bonecrcker at somewhere around 2005 or 2006 that I really seen it laid out in print in a way that corresponded with my own life experiences and observations.

The Bonecrcker is different from much of the game-o-sphere in one key way: His definitions of Alpha, Beta & Omega are entirely different from the conventional definitions we are using today. I still believe that he is closer to the underlying "Truth" with his ordering of these definitions because he goes beyond merely "scoring" and a high partner count in his definitions, for he includes social status and the ability to co-operate with other men - in order to create power - as part of his definition of "alpha."

Here are the definitions I learned it under, which will make sense further along in my argument.

Alpha: The “top” male – both sexually and socially.

Beta: Most males in the population. The average guy.

Omega: The scum/deviant/criminal class

Zeta: Weak-willed males

Alpha males don’t usually get the most partners. Alpha males get the best chick around and she beats off all the other women with a stick. Alpha males are respected in society – they are not only sexually attractive, but they also have great social power and have the respect and admiration of other men. Think back to when you were in high-school. The star quarterback, while he could have shagged a lot of 6’s, 7’s and 8’s, that is not generally what he does. What happens is he gets the prom queen – the best/hottest chick – and they usually stay together for quite a while. He does not trade his “10” in for quickies with a series of “7’s”. The top male pairs off with the top female and they tend to stay together.

Keep in mind that female hypergamy comes into play with the Alpha. If the prom queen is dating a "10", then who would she "trade up" for? Most men are not 10's and there is pretty much only one Alpha in any closed group (it's zero sum). Most males are 5's (average), leaving the range from 6 to 10 for female hypergamy to wish to trade up for when she's dating an "average guy." At the top end of the scale, however, there become very, very few prospects for her to view as better than her current 10, and so the top pair tends to stay together.

“Beta” males are almost all other males. They are not weak wimps, as they are so often derided as. They are merely the males that come in second place (or further). Not everyone can win the footrace and place 1st. The sexual marketplace is a zero sum game. There cannot be 12 alphas of equal sexual-social rank. It just doesn’t work that way with hypergamy. She prefers only the best, and that does not refer to the “top dozen,” but only number one is “The Best.” Beta males generally have more sexual partners than Alpha males as they screw around lots when they are younger and sort out their socio-sexual rankings before finding the right socio-sexually ranked female to pair off with. Being 2nd place does not mean you are a slow runner – it merely means you are second place, which is still higher than third, which is still better than fourth. You cannot have 12 firsts – except in modern feminist-inspired schoolyard sports.

“Omega” males are the scum class as well as the sexually deviant class. These are the bad-boys and these are also the guys who have multiple sex partners. A key characteristic of Omega males is that they cannot form stable relationships. They are not powerful like Alpha males. They might get lots of girls, but essentially they are powerless in society and have little real respect from those around them - especially other males. Girls may screw them, but girls don’t stay with them. Not having the respect of other males makes them socially powerless, and this is the key to why they are not Alpha males.

“Zeta” males are weak-willed males. They rarely get sex and when they do, they are ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by women.

When the game community talks “Alpha” they are really describing “Omega” and when they say “Beta” they are really describing “Zeta.” The proper references to Real Alphas and Real Betas are missing.

Now, one has to keep in mind that since the rise of feminism in our culture, most males have been relentlessly propagandized to believe that Zeta characteristics are the proper ones. After 40 some years of this, as well as a healthy heaping of totalitarian styled laws removing all sorts of powers from the average male, indeed, if most males are “Beta” males (ie. average people), then it is true that this indoctrination has indeed encouraged and tricked the average man into taking on many characteristics of the weak-willed Zeta. In this sense it is understandable to confuse the modern Beta with the traditional Zeta.

However, it is entirely false to confuse the Alpha with Omega traits. One must keep in mind that human beings naturally exhibit pair-bonding and Alphas still pair bond while Omegas do not. Most high partner count people I know, such as my two friends I mentioned above, are Omegas, not Alphas. They are sexual deviants with numerous sexual partners but their social ranking is low and that is why they need to continually game more than one woman at a time. They can only fool a woman into believing they are Alpha for a short amount of time and they have little ability to actually keep a woman of high mating value. Another reason they continually need to have more than one chick on the go is to protect their own emotional vulnerability. Of course, this behaviour also provides the Omega male with social proofing, which helps them get more chicks, but this is a different kind of social proofing than that which the Alpha male gets.

The “true” Alpha – the high-school football star who’s screwing the prom queen - doesn’t need to be sexually promiscuous in order to be social proofed. He is social proofed already by dating the best chick. All the other girls “know” who the best chick is, and they hate her with an envy that would turn Kermit the Frog three shades greener than he already is. Also, every girl would like to replace the prom queen herself, because they all know that the prom queen’s boyfriend is the highest value male and whoever can displace the prom queen will become the new female atop of their female ranking. In other words, the “real Alpha” doesn’t need to screw dozens of chicks to have social proofing. He’s already got it by banging the hottest chick, which every other girl wishes she could be. Should he and the prom queen split, there will be a plethora of women from the lowest sexual rank to the highest trying to achieve status by being the prom queen’s replacement. He will be snapped up again very, very fast by another very high value female, and he will again ignore all the women below that level.

Another factor that has enabled Omega behavior to be successful is urban anonymity. It is easy to be a “sexual sniper” in the big city where the Omega can easily disappear into the background before the valuable Beta class finds him out and ruins his life. You cannot rise in socio-sexual ranking when you are constantly cuckolding all those around you, whose co-operation you would need in order to gain social power in society. Keep in mind that urban growth is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. For most of history humans lived in relatively small, rural communities and they needed the co-operation and respect of those around them, especially other males, in order to survive.

An apt example of these forces and their results is found within economics. In Keynesian Economics, we see all kinds of market distortions. Low/negative real interest rates discourage savings in favor of spending – and anyone with half a brain knows that you can’t spend yourself to prosperity. However, when faced with falsely imposed negative interest rates, spending money suddenly does make more sense than saving money which will have less value in the future. In Keynesian Economics, low interest rates also lead to excessive speculation, when anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that sound investing is more profitable in the long run than risky speculation.

In the same way, what we really have going on in society is almost a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace.” In other words, a false economy based on Government Totalitarianism, enabled by Urban Anonymity, and fortified by relentless propaganda encouraging the “average Beta” to assume the traits of the weak-willed Zeta – with some further false sexually economic factors in the form of the pill and abortion – all combining to skew the “free sexual market.” The whole thing is as false as fiat money is to gold, and should these factors be removed, humans would likely revert back to a more traditional sexual marketplace – the kind often ballyhooed about in foreign cultures where things are not as far along in their screwed-upness as ours.

If it were not for things like government totalitarianism, women who mate with the scum class would find survival very difficult for themselves and their spawn. Many would likely die – and rightfully too, according to nature - for choosing an anti-survival strategy of mating with powerless Omegas who are unable to properly pair-bond. “True Alpha” males – those with high social and sexual value – would survive the best, as they have the best ability to provide, and all the lower ranking males and females (the Beta class), would again quickly pair off simply for survival’s sake. No animal, with the exception of perhaps lemmings, chooses anti-survival methods of living.

As for the Omega class, were it not for urban anonymity where they can disappear before being forced to deal with the consequences of their actions, they too would likely disappear quickly – most likely at the hands of the socially valuable Alphas and Betas. If you lived in a rural community and decided to try and screw 100 of the local women, you can almost be guaranteed to make at least 100 very motivated lifelong enemies. Keep in mind that women are like monkeys and don’t let go of one branch until they’ve gotten hold of another. Each time an Omega “scores” another man gets screwed over. Except for virgins, pretty much all women are romantically involved with someone at the time they decide to discard the old for the new. This is not conducive behavior for gaining social power amongst the other males surrounding the Omega male, and in fact will soon leave him completely powerless and struggling for survival. If an Omega were the town blacksmith and he screwed 100 of the local women, he would soon find a large portion of the town shunning him and taking their business to the next town, if someone didn’t outright kill him first for his cuckolding behavior. There is very, very little survival value for a woman and child to be attached to an Omega male. Without government welfare picking up the slack and creating a “Keynesian Sexual Marketplace,” the natural market would soon see both the Omegas and their lovers removed from the race.

And herein lies the quandary with “game” as it is put forth in the Manosphere today. We have the Omega class (low value males – lower than Beta) posing as Alphas (high value males), and since Omegas are the scum class rather than socially powerful Alphas who have other males’ cooperation (along with high female attraction), the Omegas are flourishing while Beta males are floundering after being relentlessly propagandized to emulate the weak-willed traits of the Zetas. And, in many ways, Omegas are scum for how they treat other males. There are many who believe that when out pussy-hunting, it is their right to screw other men’s wives and then get a chuckle at their cuckolding of other men. This is deviant behavior, and certainly not “Alpha.”

I have seen it pointed out before in Game circles that “Alphas” like to consider all women “theirs” and will try to undermine the “Betas” to protect his harem. This is, I believe, incorrect. It is deviant Omega behavior that does this. The Alpha has lots of social co-operation in society because he has only one chick – the hottest one – and he stays with her, thereby not screwing over multitudes of other men whose cooperation he needs in order to accomplish things. It is the Omegas that choose to screw multitudes of people over in order to achieve their sexual goals. 

The Omega male will also support feminism in many regards, as it makes women sexually loose and into bonafide sluts. The Omega gamesman wants women to be sluts with a screwed up, anti-survival sense of mating, and the Omega wants his sexual competitors to be denigrated, taking on Zeta male traits to the point of them being sexually unattractive to the females in his line of vision.

Most faux-Alpha Omegas are also actively trying to dominate other men (AMOG'ing) in order to raise their sexual ranking and are quite pleased when they succeed in doing so. This is deviancy and is not conducive to social climbing but rather, it produces the opposite. Both of my high-partner count friends I ended up ejecting from my life because the troubles they brought about to themselves, and by extension to me, was enormous. They also had no qualms of sleeping with their friends' girlfriends if they could get away with it. "Bro's before ho's" had no meaning to both of my high partner count friends and there was constantly a shit-storm following them around because of it. The one - the guy who has slept with around 200 women - was relentless in trying to cock-block his friends in regard to women, unless he had banged the woman first. As long as he had screwed the chick first, he was OK with one of his buddies dating her after. I also discovered over time that he had slept with almost all of his friends' wives behind their backs at one time or another - usually during times of marital difficulty - and he even had it down to a science. When you start hearing about "nailing your friend's wife game," you know you are getting into the deviancy quadrant.  

Think of the guy in the pub who always tries to comb everyone else down with his superior IQ, his superior vehicle, his superior house, his superior fighting (bragging) skills, his superior blah blah blah, compared to your stupidity, your piece of crap car and house, your wimpy attitude… yeah, that is usually the guy that ends up sitting alone in the corner all alone because nobody likes him and nobody wants to co-operate with him. Now think of that same guy but he is trying to dominate you by sexually stealing your woman, and everyone else’s woman too! Not only is it homo-erotic to try and dominate other men by proxy through women, but it also might convince some of those men to get up out of their chair and deal with the situation in a very primal way. This is not the behavior of an Alpha who has high social standing, but is deviant behavior typical of the scum/criminal class, creating damage wherever they go.

On the other hand, I know two "true alphas."

They are both assertive and dominant with their women. The one guy is one of my best friends. My jaw just dropped when I seen him walk in with his new girlfriend - the absolute hottest girl in town.

You know what? He refused to have sex with her for the first two months they dated... said he didn't want to until he knew they had real feelings for each other (ie. qualifying). He also told her she was not allowed to work as a waitress at a pub or anything like that - he just would not stand for it, having all kinds of men at the pub always hitting on her.

She conformed herself around him and they have been together now for around 16 years. When you went to their house, you rang the door bell and knew you had to wait for five minutes because they had to get dressed - after 8 or 9 years, they still had sex four times a day. The last time I was there (I don't live in the same town anymore), he was in the shower while she called and left a dirty message for him on the answering machine... I was in the living room having a beer with his dad and he was in such a hurry to get out of the shower so we wouldn't hear that he fell, ripped the curtain off the shower, and ran out naked to stop the recording. His dad and I laughed at him repeatedly all night. But good for him it is like that after all those years.

The other "alpha" I knew was a guy who married a chick fifteen years younger. He was 40 and she was 25 when they met. They had been married for a little over ten years when I knew them. He had been through the divorce wringer before and told her they were going to follow traditional gender roles, and that was that.

They would have me over for dinner, and afterwards, I would try to help cleaning up and doing the dishes.

"No no no, Rob," he would say to me. "We follow gender roles in this house. You came here to help me put siding up on the house for a weekend and she didn't help because that was man's work. Now it is time for her to do her work. Let's go into the living room and watch NASCAR."

You know, it was one of the best working marriages I've ever seen. She was very happy.

Both of these men were very popular and had lots of friends as well as respect in the community. There is definitely a difference between these men and the two high-partner-count friends I had, who got into fist fights almost as regularly as they got laid. The two "true alphas" had enormous social respect and co-operation while the two high-number friends had a vast number of enemies and were always looking over their shoulder.

Does this mean that Game in the conventional sense that we have come to know doesn’t work? Absolutely not. It works very well – especially in our false sexual marketplace coupled with the ability to disappear into a large urban environment where getting along with others socially is not nearly as important as it was only 150 years ago, and throughout most of human history before that. Also, knowing that Beta males are being socially conditioned to adopt Zeta behavior is enormously useful to regular men/Betas. Hopefully it will help the average man reverse the damage which the Zeta-promoting feminist propaganda has brainwashed him with.

But Omega is not Alpha, because Omegas make too many enemies to be socially successful with other men, and when other men don’t want to co-operate with you, you may find yourself truly screwed in society, which in turn makes Omegas of extremely low mating (survival) value. If/when our governments go broke, as well as everyone else along with them, and the failures of society can no longer count on being “bailed out,” the false sexual marketplace will disappear. Without this government interference, women who choose low-value, high mate-count Omegas will again be forced to pay, and pay dearly, for their anti-survival mating strategies and the true Alpha & Beta paradigm will again reappear, simply because of survival strategy.

These are the times we live in. With Keynesian Economics and the false influences it causes, one would have been a complete fool to have sat in gold bullion from 1980 to 2000 while passing on the rising real-estate market because of “false Keynesian influences.” You still have to live in the times you are presented with until natural forces once again over-rule synthetic ones. In the mean time you have to survive and see that your needs are still met. And so it is in the sexual marketplace of today, where men have to adjust their behaviour to ensure their needs are met, and thus certain aspects of game are indeed advisable to utilize. Perhaps the term Ethical Omegas ought to be created. It is unadvisable to pair-bond in our current political climate and yet men's need for sex is very real and cannot be denied, thus men ought to make sure that their needs are met while protecting themselves as much as possible - therefore it is indeed wise to emulate certain Omega traits such as avoiding "one-itis." But, in the back of one’s mind, it would probably be wise to remember that we are living in the times of a false sexual economy and eventually natural forces will overwhelm the synthetic ones. Natural forces have a habit of doing that.

Related: Bonecrcker #43 – Women Behave Like Beavis and Butthead

Previous Index Next
.

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................