... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 24 Nov 2013, 10:28

Gavin twittered an article by TD: http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_oh_to_be.html

It is an interesting read about how some women can be only helped by judging their poor choice of men (criminals, drunkhards, druggies, abusive men and so on). At least that is how I would interpret it... and I agree with that. But what about the men?

It is not the first time I have heard a conservative complain about the men women nowadays choose.

I must admit I do not know much about ghetto life are there so many law-abiding, sober, hardworking, non-violent men to choose from for an average-looking woman who grows up in the ghetto? From what I heard I doubt it.

Of course there the women are to blame for prefering any man to singlehood... but what about the men? They are to blame for being like that.

To my mind the same is true for the blame which is placed on single mothers in conservative circles. I do not think single parenthood is a good thing and in fact I had lots of arguments about this with leftists friends (which I wrote about on this boards)... but what about the men who impregnate them and then hit the ground?

There seems to be some kind of double-think like "He is a stud, she is a slut" in the mind of conservatives.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Jonathan » 24 Nov 2013, 22:36

I think that what Dalrymple would say to that is that the complicity of the woman in her own misery does not exonerate the guilt of the man. He is wicked for not working, for beating her, for being unfaithful, and for not supporting his children. She bears responsibility for her misery for living with such a man and having his children.

As for the stud vs. slut double standard, I'm sure it exists to varying degrees in the minds of most people, including conservatives. Let me suggest two points for consideration:

1) For a conservative, whatever admiration a man may gain for bedding many women, he will lose for fathering bastards and abandoning them. Besides, if the only women who want him are the ones who are so drunk that they don't even know with whom they're going home, how much admiration will he really get?

2) The double standard is good for society, because it places the burden of preventing single motherhood on the women. Why is this good? Because if a woman is sharing her favors with several men, then none of them can be publicly held responsible for fathering the child - indeed, none of them will be certain the child is his. Therefore, this burden cannot be effectively placed on the men, and it is better that it be unequally placed than it not exist at all.

Furthermore, one gets the impression from Dalrymple's description that most of these children are conceived deliberately, at the woman's initiative, and that few of them are the result of an accident or ignorance.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 25 Nov 2013, 02:41

Yessica: There are great swathes of the manosphere devoted to explaining this, and I will try to summarise those ideas as best I can here.

The slut/stud distinction is rooted in the following. Firstly, there needs to be an acknowledgement that men and women are different. Women do have to live with the consequences of their actions and men don't. A woman has to choose her mate carefully because she has to devote nine months to carrying her child, then several more years to raising it. She bears an enormous cost in doing so. Men, on the other hand can have literally hundreds of children for relatively low cost. Biologically, to a large extent, women "succeed" in the mating game by pursuing quality, whilst men "succeed" by pursuing quantity.

Secondly, even on qualitative issues, there is a difference between what men and women are valued for as mates. Women are valued by men for fertility, a large proxy of which is beauty. There are very clear beauty markers that serve as proxies for fertility and which decline with age. One such example is the lustre of hair. Another is skin quality. This is because women have a fairly short fertility window that ends at menopause. There is no such thing as a menopausal male (though fertility does decline somewhat with men with age and there are also increased risks of genetic defects in children with really old fathers). Men at fifty can still have children. Women, generally, cannot.

Men, generally speaking then, are judged by different standards, namely their abilities as resource providers and their status within the group because this can often confer lesser males paying some form of tribute (either in terms of physical resources or as support personnel in acquiring such resources) to dominant males. Male CEOs are vastly more attractive to women than female CEOs are to men (in fact, female CEOs may well turn men off). Women, in so much as they are valued for behaviours are valued in the degree to which they are nurturers of their offspring and/or support the ability of their mates to be/continue to be good resource providers. This used to be called feminine behaviour, though an ideological war has been waged upon it by various left wing cretins (most notably feminists) for the past half century. The point of all of this is that women's sexual market value (attractiveness as mates) basically is ever in decline, whereas for males, it can still be very strong well into, and beyond, middle age. Indeed, males probably really come into their own in their thirties (or even forties), whereas the thirties are a cliff for a woman. Conversely, the twenties can be difficult for a lot of men because they haven't acquired either resources, the skills to acquire resources, or status, whereas women will be much more successful in their twenties because of their beauty. This is probably why a lot more women than men dread turning thirty. In East Asia, women are washed up at thirty. No one will marry them. Indeed, in Japan, it's even worse.

That said, there are some proxies used as male attractiveness, but they are still not as strong as those for women. There are certain "masculine" features (e.g. strong jawline, long/large fingers, etc.) that are representative of higher testosterone levels, which could be taken as somewhat of a predictor of being dominant/successful. Incidentally, on that topic, before reading about all of this, no matter how much the media always tried to sell actresses such as Jennifer Aniston or Sarah Jessica Parker as attractive, I just never saw it. In fact, their strong "man jaws" were a huge turn off for me (not to mention their generally masculine behaviour). In fact, do a Google Images search for "Jennifer Aniston man face" or "Sarah Jessica Parker man hands" -- yikes! Trinity in the Matrix was one of the most egregious examples of this "women pretending to be men pretending to be women is hot" memes out there, so I guess I noticed this at least fourteen years ago, way before the manosphere. There is an underlying biological reason (strong testosterone levels, i.e. they are actually more "male" than a lot of women). On the other hand, there is a reason a lot of men really like Zooey Deschanel. Not only does she look feminine (check her jawline or hands), she dresses in such a way, and she has made "controversial" statements in support of such behaviour.

Back on topic, "game" is somewhat of a "hack" to all of this in that a man could basically "fake it". Game is to men what makeup is to women.

Now, to finally get to the point regarding all of this and societies. Long-lasting, sustainable societies realised that these biological issues are an absolute nightmare for a society and need to be restricted in some sense. Otherwise, what you end up with is a kind of pareto principle where certain men reap a disproportionate share of the pie. Women, biologically, will tend to end up as part of a harem, be it a soft harem (e.g. modern "playas"/PUAs) or a hard harem (e.g. polygamous marriages, such as in the Middle East), or there is cuckoldry. There is a reason that most successful societies enshrine monogamy, chastity, fidelity, etc. Without those traits, there is a large section of men who have no stake in the society because they will never get a woman. Those men are very, very dangerous en masse, and unless a society flushes them out regularly with wars or has some other draconian ways of dealing with them, they can create great civil disturbances (witness China, India, the Middle East, etc. when this issue really hits in coming decades) or the society just struggles generally to operate at full capacity against outside threats.

There are a number of subsidiary factors involved, but a large part of the problem amongst the lower class right now can be explained by two things. The first is the above (that there is probably a sizable section of the male populace not getting women and children). The other is that the incentives are all wrong. The traditional moral factors that would have set up monogamous, chaste, faithful citizens have been abandoned and actively punished. Further to this, the consequences of these actions, for both men and women, have been passed on to other members of society (who provide taxes for the welfare state) who do still believe in the old morality. That is simply unsustainable because such people will either be outbred to the point that they won't be able to provide enough tax or they will revolt in some way (including overthrowing the new morality and returning to the old morality, seceding, expatriating, avoiding paying tax, etc.).

Traditional societies generally no more rewarded, encouraged or admired men being "studs" than they did women being "sluts", though there was more leeway in the upper classes (though it was still generally kept behind closed doors so that the hypocrisy wouldn't be seen, and thus emulated by lower classes, leading to the breakdown of society).

Modern Western societies (and increasingly some other modern societies) are at best neutral toward promiscuous and irresponsible behaviour by either sex, and sometimes actively condone and promote such things. Such societies are unsustainable and will either have a revolution to more traditional mores, they will collapse, or they will be supplanted by other societies that have a better handle on all of this. The West is in for some rocky times in the next few decades. Whether it emerges out the other side or goes into extinction, in the long term, there won't be liberalism, including in the sexual marketplace.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Elliott » 25 Nov 2013, 02:46

One thing I would add, on the question of why the responsibility for pregnancy should be placed on women rather than men, is the simple nature of the genders make it much easier for this responsibility to be women's rather than men's.

Men have millions and millions of sperm, a completely inexhaustible supply, meaning that we can have potentially many thousands of offspring. It is therefore built into us to impregnate as many women as possible. It is contemptible, but not at all surprising, that men like casual sex, many different partners, and can easily have sex without developing any emotional attachment.

Women are the natural filter for this activity. In contrast to men, they do not have millions of eggs, but a relatively tiny number. They can only have a very small number of offspring - about 20 as opposed to 20,000. As such, evolution/God/nature has built into the female a natural cautiousness about whom she sleeps with. That natural caution is what society needs to "plug into" and encourage. It is already there, we just need to sanctify it with social customs.

Of course, men should also be held responsible for pregnancy. I just think we should be realistic.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 25 Nov 2013, 02:56

Elliott: I disagree with you slightly. I don't think women necessarily have a biological inclination to being careful in quite that way. If a woman can't get impregnated by, and then supported by, an alpha male, then getting impregnated by, and then supported by, a beta male will be just as good.

Indeed, it might even be better because having an alpha male as your support base could be somewhat risky since that alpha male might devote resources to pursuing and impregnating other women, or he might end up on the hook (voluntarily or not) for supporting another woman's kid. Either situation represents resources diverted away from a woman's offspring.

This is why cuckoldry has often been seen as possibly the worst sin a woman could ever commit, perhaps bar infanticide. Cuckoldry, for beta males, is literally the equivalent of rape for females. Cuckoldry is great for women though!
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Elliott » 25 Nov 2013, 03:08

I don't think that contradicts what I said, Caleb.

I think that women, despite the modern feminist claims, are far less into promiscuous sex than men are. I think they are, by nature, more cautious about sex. Left to their own devices, the genders would have very different ways of appraising "a good year". A good year for a guy would be that he had sex with 100 different women. A good year for a woman would be that, after conversing with 100 different men, she had selected one who would be a good provider and had good genes and slept with him, solely (thus ensuring that the offspring would be his and he would stick around and provide for them).
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 25 Nov 2013, 03:17

I think there is overlap between being attractive/having good genes, on the one hand, and being a good provider, on the other. However, there is also an area of each circle that lies outside the overlap. There is, of course, a reason why the guards of the harem were not only eunuchs, but often black. The sultans weren't silly.

That said, I don't think it's just feminism in the modern era that is the problem. Modern birth control (including abortions) circumvents biology to a large extent. In fact, it may have even been a prerequisite for feminism to take hold. No pill, no feminism. Japan is famous for all sorts of pretty bizarre sexual stuff whilst simultaneously ostensibly being a very patriarchal society. It has masses of love hotels and also a very high abortion rate. The same is true to a certain extent in other East Asian countries. I don't think anyone would define such countries as being "feminist", at least nowhere near as much as the West. Feminism is only part of the issue. Sex has been divorced from consequences due to technology. The welfare state has also been part of it, of course.

You are right that women are probably naturally less promiscuous than men, but I suspect that they're more promiscuous than you think.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 25 Nov 2013, 12:53

Elliott wrote:Left to their own devices, the genders would have very different ways of appraising "a good year". A good year for a guy would be that he had sex with 100 different women. A good year for a woman would be that, after conversing with 100 different men, she had selected one who would be a good provider and had good genes and slept with him, solely (thus ensuring that the offspring would be his and he would stick around and provide for them).


What do you mean by good year? From an evolutionary perspective or from a feel good perspective?

Conversing with 100 men is not that difficult for a woman, who looks okay, is not to unfriendly and not too unenducated. She just needs to visit 20 parties/balls/apre ski parties.
I knew lots of women who did that as part of their "manhunt" and they HATED it. A "feel-good-year" from a womans perspective would rather look like that: She is minding her own business when knight in shining armor on a white horse arrives and tells her he is deeply in love with her. He happens to be perfect and they live happily forever after. Of course it never happens. That is why so many skiresorts are full of women who hate skiing.
We women are not to choosey when it comes to finding a man. All we ask for is perfection ;)

What I actually wanted to say is that women (at least the ones I know) rarely enjoy the chase. They want the result + hate the hunt.

I really do hope a good year from my husbands perspective does not involve having casual sex with hundreds of women... and if it does it would be very wise of him never to tell me because I won't be pleased to hear.
Would that really be a good year from your perspective, Elliott?

As for evolution: I think that we as humans are in the unique position to be able not only to act on our instincts*. As far as I know humans are pretty k-strategic (few offspring, long childhood, high parental investment... also high intelligence, high altruism)... and as far as I hear high investment from the father and the rest of the clan... for a child without a father had very dim chances of survival in former times.

* which may be "kill thy neighbour and steal his possessions"
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Elliott » 01 Dec 2013, 10:47

Elliott wrote:Left to their own devices, the genders would have very different ways of appraising "a good year". A good year for a guy would be that he had sex with 100 different women. A good year for a woman would be that, after conversing with 100 different men, she had selected one who would be a good provider and had good genes and slept with him, solely (thus ensuring that the offspring would be his and he would stick around and provide for them).


Yessica wrote:What do you mean by good year? From an evolutionary perspective or from a feel good perspective?

A feel-good perspective for the man, and an evolutionary perspective for the woman. In general, women are much more concerned with the long-term when they think about sex, while men go absolutely nuts for short-term thrills. This is why the vast majority of prostitutes (of either sex) cater to men.

Conversing with 100 men is not that difficult for a woman, who looks okay, is not to unfriendly and not too unenducated. She just needs to visit 20 parties/balls/apre ski parties.
I knew lots of women who did that as part of their "manhunt" and they HATED it. A "feel-good-year" from a womans perspective would rather look like that: She is minding her own business when knight in shining armor on a white horse arrives and tells her he is deeply in love with her. He happens to be perfect and they live happily forever after.

What I actually wanted to say is that women (at least the ones I know) rarely enjoy the chase. They want the result + hate the hunt.

Absolutely, and this reinforces what I was saying. Women don't want the hunt, or the variety, they want the end result: the perfect man. Most men don't have an equivalent "perfect woman". They love the hunt. In fact I think a lot of men would prefer to just have a life-long hunt for one woman after another and never settle with one. It would be a huge ego kick, and it would be tremendous fun.

I really do hope a good year from my husbands perspective does not involve having casual sex with hundreds of women... and if it does it would be very wise of him never to tell me because I won't be pleased to hear.
Would that really be a good year from your perspective, Elliott?

No of course not, because I have substance, and in any case do not enjoy social occasions, so it's very likely that a year of hunting women would not yield much joy/success for me. But the idea of it, the idea of sleeping with a different woman every night, yes of course it appeals to me. I know it wouldn't be good for me but I know it would be an awful lot of fun - in the short-term.

As for evolution: I think that we as humans are in the unique position to be able not only to act on our instincts*. As far as I know humans are pretty k-strategic (few offspring, long childhood, high parental investment... also high intelligence, high altruism)... and as far as I hear high investment from the father and the rest of the clan... for a child without a father had very dim chances of survival in former times.

* which may be "kill thy neighbour and steal his possessions"

Yes, I agree with all of that.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Connor » 06 Dec 2013, 08:24

I recently read an article that reminded me of Yessica's original post in this thread:

Why are women drawn to men behind bars?

It examines the strange world of women who are married to men on death row. Apparently, there are quite a few European women involved in long-distance relationships with American men who are scheduled for execution. This is from the Guardian, but there doesn't seem to be much of the left-leaning bias that you would expect. The topic is so odd that the journalist seems to be genuinely baffled by it, so politics never really get inserted into the article.

I must say, I myself am just as baffled. This trend seems to be an extreme example of the kind of behavior that Yessica (and Dalrymple) examined in the first post. What strikes me, though, is that the women have to go considerably out of their way in order to contact these future lovers. Men in prison - especially the ones on death row - are about as "unavailable" as possible to women, but even so, they are sought out. Now, obviously, the women who are enamored with these men are not psychologically normal women, just as their objects of desire are not psychologically normal men. It's still a bizarre dynamic though, no matter how much of it we ascribe to social deviancy.

Actually, I've read things about this strange tradition for some years now. It's well-known that serial killer Ted Bundy had dozens of female admirers who visited his trial just to gaze at him. He reportedly received hundreds of love letters from women right up until his execution. Then there's the recent news of Charles Manson's engagement to a 25 year old devotee of his. I read about these things in awe (not in a good way), but I don't believe I've ever come to a satisfying explanation.

Perhaps these women simply have a longing for the "bad boy attitude," but they've taken that longing to a dark and disturbing limit. I suppose being a psychopathic killer is one type of alpha-male, though it's not the route that most guys would take. Probably for the best...
Connor
 
Posts: 113
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 03:54
Location: New York, NY, USA

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Vincent » 06 Dec 2013, 09:46

I don't know why it's so ...
Vincent
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 29 Nov 2013, 12:27

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 06 Dec 2013, 12:11

Connor wrote:Men in prison - especially the ones on death row - are about as "unavailable" as possible to women, but even so, they are sought out.


Supply and demand. That which is rare or unattainable causes fascination and aspiration.

It is perverse, but an interest or obsession with men on death row is just an exaggerated or twisted preference for men who engage in risk taking behaviour. In other contexts, for obvious reasons, such extreme kinds of risk taking behaviour would be deemed admirable. These are guys who misdirected their energies or went too far, but the point of attraction is their verve in the first place.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 12:59

Vincent wrote:Perhaps part of the reason some women are attracted to bad men, homosexuals and alcoholics is a belief that they can help change them: a disastrous basis for a physical relationship, but merely idealistic in correspondence.


Well, first let me make clear that not all women are attracted to bad man. I would never date a guy on the death row and none of the women I know would.

Some misguided women seem to be attracted to them. Why? I would agree with you: They think they can change them. somewhere I heard that men have a "fight or flight" response, while women have an inbuild "tend and befriend" response. They like the opportunity to "safe" them.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 13:14

Caleb wrote:
Connor wrote:Men in prison - especially the ones on death row - are about as "unavailable" as possible to women, but even so, they are sought out.


Supply and demand. That which is rare or unattainable causes fascination and aspiration.

It is perverse, but an interest or obsession with men on death row is just an exaggerated or twisted preference for men who engage in risk taking behaviour. In other contexts, for obvious reasons, such extreme kinds of risk taking behaviour would be deemed admirable. These are guys who misdirected their energies or went too far, but the point of attraction is their verve in the first place.


Do women like risk-taking behaviour in men? If they do it must be very, very subconcious as all women I know say they hate it.

The other day I was talking to a rugby coach. He told me with a wide grin how much his wife hates his choice of sport, my question "Are there any wifes who like it then?", "No, actually not... but deep down they love it"

A very typical situation I have experienced hundreds and hundreds of times in couples I know:

Man: engages in some small or bigger risk-taking-behaviour
Woman: Oh my God, oh my God, what are you doing again?
Man: Oh... come on... you love me for being like that
Woman (telling her girlfriends): He is such an idiot. I wonder why I tolerate this behaviour

There are two explanations for that:
a) men know something about women women themselves don't know
b) many men have a super-inflated ego and think "Whatever I do. Am I not gorgeous? All women fall for me"
or c) a mix of both
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 06 Dec 2013, 13:40

Yessica: Never ask a person what he or she thinks he or she does. Watch what he or she does. Lots of people will tell you that they are good drivers, yet accidents occur and insurance companies have everything figured out. Lots of people will tell you that advertising does not work on them, yet they spend tons and tons of money on non-essential items. All those companies paying for advertising are onto something. Lots of women will tell you that they don't like risk taking behaviour by men, yet professional sportsmen, entrepreneurs and criminals never seem to want for women.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Next

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.