How much farther to Abilene?

Feminists on their way to Abilene are always driving but never arriving.

In a previous thread, I remarked:

It’s got to feel as bad for men as it does for women to continue in this feminist charade that we are all playing.

And Farm Boy responded:

You will never know…

Women hate it.  Men hate it.  Why do we keep playing?

The second wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s was begun by a small group of highly dysfunctional and mentally unstable women; for example, both Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem have written quite a bit about being either abused or neglected as children.  Friendan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” supposedly gave voice to what millions of women were feeling – dissatisfaction with being wives and mothers and a yearning to have careers of their own.  Her book “The Second Stage” discusses the “need” for both men and women to break free from traditional sex roles.

Everyone went along with it.  Women began jumping on board slowly but surely, and yet happiness levels have declined for women as feminism has become pervasive.  The more feminism we get, the more we “free” ourselves from our God-given sex roles, the unhappier everyone is.  Women are really conflicted because they believe they should be feminists and careerists, so they play career for a little while until they can finally settle into being the traditional wives and mothers that they have always really wanted to be.  They want to claim to be feminists, but they don’t really want to have the drudgery of a full-time career for the rest of their lives.  Instead, they want to do what women have always done – care for their families – but they feel ashamed of this desire and this shame makes them behave badly.

For some men, feminism has been just peachy keen, especially third-wave sex-positive feminism.  If you are a natural alpha with no religious convictions, there has never been a better time to be alive.  You can swim in a veritable sea of willing women who have thrown all sexual restraint to the wind.  There is no requirement to get married and support a family; after all, women said they wanted to support themselves, and these men took them at their word.  And why shouldn’t they have?

I didn’t realize this until the last six months because I was operating under the apex fallacy, but for other men, the feminist destruction of traditional sex roles hasn’t been quite so fun.  These men would have preferred to find a wife and have a traditional marriage, but sex positive feminism has unleashed the inner slut in women at large by unchaining their hypergamy, turning them into thrill-addicts and rendering them nearly unable to honor a relationship commitment with an average sort of man.

For all men, the push to feminize them and socialize them to believe that their natural masculine tendencies are bad has created a generation of boys who don’t feel like society cares about them or needs them.   Feeling unnecessary and unappreciated feels horrible to anyone but is particularly poisonous to men.

Women have taken on more masculine roles, even though only a small minority of us really want to do that.  Most of us, deep down, really would prefer to be the girl in the relationship.  Despite what we hear from Sheryl Sandberg and Warren Buffet, our modern day versions of Betty Friedan, most women want to put their families before their careers.

How did we get to this point?  The Abilene paradox perfectly describes it.  For those who don’t know:

The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group’s and, therefore, does not raise objections.

Here is the classic story which illustrates the Abilene paradox:

On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, “Sounds like a great idea.” The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, “Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go.” The mother-in-law then says, “Of course I want to go. I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, “I wasn’t delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you.” The wife says, “I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that.” The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

The problem is that a small group of sick women said, “Hey, we hate it here, so let’s all go to Abilene instead.”  And everyone else, who were by and large perfectly happy where they were, didn’t want to rock the boat and said, “Well…okay.  I guess.”  Unfortunately, you don’t any longer have much of a choice about going to Abilene; you pretty much have to go now, whether you want to or not.  But we need to stop saying it’s okay and that we want to go.

We don’t want to go to Abilene.  Most of us want to enjoy our natural sex roles.  We’re happy to be feminine if we are women.  We’re pleased to be masculine if we are men.  And we want to be with other people who don’t seem to hate their sex and who aren’t constantly trying to make themselves more like the opposite sex.  We need to be that voice that says No thanks! to continuing down the road to Abilene; by speaking up, we allow others to voice their desire not to go to Abilene on the feminist short bus either.

177 thoughts on “How much farther to Abilene?

  1. Frank

    For a second I thought Abilene was a town in Colorado and was wondering what the big deal was about everyone going there.

  2. Frank

    BTW, if you can forgive me for delving slightly off-topic for a second to pick everyone’s brains here, I was wondering where you and some of the commenters get their Christian news from. I’m trying to keep tabs on current trends within the Christian community to comment on for future posts, but I don’t know what the best sources are (other than Christianity Today.) Any suggestions appreciated!

    [ssm: Christianity Today is thoroughly feministic. Relevant Magazine is the same kind of gig but for younger Christians (twenties, early thirties). The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can be good but sometimes misses the covert form of feminism preferred by Christian women.]

  3. Martel

    I think part of the problem is the Hamster.

    The Hamster rationalizes past decisions as well as present ones. Lots of old wave feminists devoted a lot of time and energy into it. Admitting to themselves that they’ve all but destroyed their kids and grandkids chance at happiness has got to be tough. It’s therefore time to double down.

    Also, there are huge institutional and political investments into feminism that will not be relinquished easily. Think of all the Title IX sports coaches and scholarship programs, diversity and counseling programs, Planned Parenthood and countless support organizations, sexual harassment and family lawyers, the War on Women wing of the Democratic Party, etc.

    To them, the individual men and women who are being made miserable are just unfortunate pawns in a massive power struggle.

    [ssm: Yep, all you say is true. Still, sometimes just hearing someone else give voice to what you’ve been thinking and feeling can be powerful. And we have to remember that, outside of the neo-reactionary sphere, most people have never considered these issues. Around the sphere, most people believe as Socrates did, that the unexamined life is not worth living, but unexamined is how most people do in fact live their lives. They just bumble along doing whatever the culture says but with a nagging sense that something is not right.]

  4. alcestiseshtemoa

    That’s the entire problem with liberalism, the enlightenment, modernity, secularism and other assorted like-minded movements/worldviews.

    The dream can never be fulfilled, hence the search will never die. And blood will be spilled in the road to that utopia, which is in reality a dystopia. It’s an endless doubling-down against reality, truth, beauty, goodness and transcendence.

  5. Elspeth

    I didn’t realize this until the last six months because I was operating under the apex fallacy, but for other men, the feminist destruction of traditional sex roles hasn’t been quite so fun. These men would have preferred to find a wife and have a traditional marriage, but sex positive feminism has unleashed the inner slut in women at large by unchaining their hypergamy, turning them into thrill-addicts and rendering them nearly unable to honor a relationship commitment with an average sort of man.

    This. This is key. I just got a comment from someone in the grips of the apex fallacy and I replied similarly. He (or she) is conflating the experiences of the top tier men with those in the middle and on the bottom. Big mistake.

    [ssm: Yes, it is a big mistake. And I still have some trouble with the apex fallacy. I just take it on faith that men here are telling me the truth when they say they couldn't get girlfriends in their twenties very easily.]

  6. Stingray

    Weren’t we just discussing the strange and unintentional overlap that one often finds around these blogs? Guess who else is hashing out a post on why women might not be so happy today? ;)

  7. ray

    Also, there are huge institutional and political investments into feminism that will not be relinquished easily

    right

    women polled will always report “unhappiness” bc they know it’s the trigger for men to “fix the problem” on their behalf

    i have certainly not found that “women hate” feminism and their matriarchy — quite a few dont like a few features, such as the unintended consequence of going FemCareer then being disappointed and enraged at age 35 when men arent interested in marrying them

    but most women appear quite satisfied with the rest of the vaginocracy in most other aspects, judging by the smugness on their faces and fatness of their bank accounts; they know that they rule the govt, courts, schools, information sources, etc, and they are VERY happy with this status quo, tho of course demanding more uh equality

    across the West we now have a vast govt/NGO structure of feminism that’s inextricably ingrained into every aspect of life — the political, economic, legal and psychological investments, as the prior commenter notes, are massive, and women ARE happy with this, despite some reservations in the relationship-department (but then, they are used to having everything their way, and so anything less than perfection to them = “not happy”)

    as that bitchboy Buffett recently demonstrated, the most powerful men across the West also do not “hate feminism” — they love it, and its platforms insures their continued success, as other males are disenfranchised, and their wealth is transferred to the (spending spending spending) designer purses of the Greater Gender

  8. okrahead

    Must’ve taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque. And if you’re a Johnny Cash fan it’s Jackson. There’s a Johnny Cash song for just about everything.

    [ssm: +1 for the man in black.]

  9. alcestiseshtemoa

    Weren’t we just discussing the strange and unintentional overlap that one often finds around these blogs?

    This happens often around this corner of web. It’s called synchronicity.

  10. Leap of a Beta

    You see the apex fallacy everywhere. Its depressing sometimes. I know a lot of women in real life that think I must get laid like tile from being in shape, smart, artistic, and moderately charismatic with the courage to do cold approaches whenever I want.

    Women don’t realize that you generally have to be extremely charismatic in all the right ways to get a chance at a woman, let alone get anywhere with her. The frustrating part is that speaking up will break the illusion and make reaching your goal harder. Thus making any man that speaks up either ‘bitter and desperate’ or ‘obviously wrong because he found someone’. Its silly

  11. alcestiseshtemoa

    the most powerful men across the West also do not “hate feminism” — they love it,

    Buffet’s recent Twit doesn’t surprise me one bit. Feminism, a couple of times, can be described as an alliance between attractive Powerful High-status men (those with LAMPS attributes) and Average Janes across the political, religious and social aisle. It’s soft polygamy and serial monogamy rolled into one. The biggest losers are average men. Low women may be losers too, but it seems they want to have a set at the buffet with Mr. Money & Power Alpha McGorgeous. Ditto about high women, since their assortive male high mates seem to be attacked by both average and low women.

  12. Sherlock

    “For all men, the push to feminize them and socialize them to believe that their natural masculine tendencies are bad has created a generation of boys who don’t feel like society cares about them or needs them. ”

    I made a comment about feminisation and its causes over at toy soldier and would like to leave it here as well. I think it nicely fits with what you say about the dysfunctional women who started the second way. Their self absorption and their narcissism is key in understanding the dynamic:

    “It is akin to explaining that violence happens because of Original Sin.”

    Yes, the original sin of being born male. Or the original sin of being masculine in HeaterNs way of twisting things.

    In another trhead she called conventional masculinity ass hatery. Going into detail she mentioned things such as being competetive, stoic, dominant, aggressive and strong as toxic masculinity and ass-hatery or something like that. The problem is all those are normal traits in a person with failry high testosterone levels. I am like that to a large degree although I have other traits as well. She and most feminist completely fail to understand such traits in a reasonable way.

    Aggressive drive is interperated as anger motivated or ill intent. Which it most certainly is not. I use aggressive drive when I want to achieve something and when I focus. I use it when I spar in martial arts. And when I use it like that trying to knock out a friend I am sparing with I have no ill feelings towards him I only wish him well. This aggressive drive if you see it as imoral gets not turned of but turned inward where it becomes depression and self loathing and anger towards oneself. It tends to reassert itself as passive aggressiveness and I belive is largely responsible for the snarkiness of feminist men. Once it does boil over and start turning itself outward again THEN it has ill intent.

    Being stoic is also a positive masculine trait. Feminists think this means repressing emotions but it does not. It means being able to remain calm and composed AT THE SAME TIME as you are experiencing strong emotion. It means having a still center within a storm. For me that is quite natural and to me it seems obvious when observing men that this is a strong tendency in most and more prevalent the more masculine they are in general. Women on the other hand (and more feminine men) tend more towards experiencing emotion in a way where they are fully outwardly embodying and expressing the emotion and sort of get caught in the emotion (being caught in the emotion is not meant by me as negative). When they look at masculine men (and more masculine women) they interperate what they see as repressing emotions because the men don`t get caught in the emotion like they do. They seem far to still and unexpressive. So something must be wrong. Because if a highly feminine person was still and unexpressive like that it would mean they held emotions in and tightened themselves up to remain composed because they are not able to do that any other way. So the misinterperation of male stoicism that feminism has and has spread to the rest of society stems from the projection the experience of feminist women (and some feminine men) onto men.

    The result of such projection of course is to try to feminize men as the logical conclusion is that these men holding back emotion must start to display evidence of processing emotion in a way these people find believable for them to be healthy. Which precisely what feminism has done and what feminists continuosly do and what I constantly see in feminist men and it is exactly what happened to me. The result of a man that is naturally masculine trying to process emotion in a feminine way is that he becomes dysfunctional and weak. Actually becoming like a feminine person and living that successfully does not work. I tried for years and it only made me miserable.

    Being competetive is not a negative trait either. It is a drive to achieve that has been responsible for much (most?) of human acomplishment. It is also fundamentally misunderstood by feminists. When men compete directly it is combined with a form of respect for the competitor and deference to whoever wins out at any given time that makes the competition also into a form of cooperation. All male groups form dominance hierarchies and these are based on respect for the skills that are deemed relevant and the personal strength (dominance) and leadership abilities of the men involved. Men constantly compete in these but they constantly form hierarchies based on the competition that leads to highly efficient cooperation. The competition drives the effort which in turn powers the effectiveness of the cooperation of the hierarchy.

    Women struggle to undestand these dynamics because they themselves feel much more threatened by clear hierarchies and direct competition in their female groups. Both those lead to hostility and the break down of competition in all woman groups. Women don`t understand how content men can be with a position that is not “equal” and they don`t understand the willingess of men to seamlessly (mostly) swap position and status and to seemingly fight the other in competition without it being seen as hostile but just a “part of the game” as men do. Womens groups cooperate overtly and punish outright direct competition and challenges but are full of indirect competition and challenges and have very clear hierarchies that are covered up and not made explicit or clear. So when feminists want cooperation what they want is feminine cooperation. That in turn means more feminisng of men and more shaping society ina one sided way to suit women, hence more matriarchy. It means EXTINGUISHING maleness. It is a form of psychological castration. And when they attack male competetiveness they are doing the same thing and are in fact showing that they do in fact find what men naturally are to be inherently evil and trying to extinguish it. Once again it is all about projection. The more I see feminism for what it is the more narcicism becomes the acurate diagnosis. How self absorped do you have to be to see the world in this manner and set out to extinguish what men naturally are.

    Dominance is not evil either. It basically means vying for leadership and authority and power. WHAT you do with that dominance is what makes it moral or immoral. You can combine the will to dominance as with and intention of shaping that which you have dominion over for good for those close to you as well as your self, you can include the wider society or the world or you can just aim for selfish gain. The will to excert power over the world and the people in it is a necessary drive that has benefited women indirectly, and which has been encouraged by women indirectly, since the begining of time. And nothing fires up a mans energy, willpower and drive and willingness to sacrifice if his quest for dominance is motivated by a higher purpose such as his women and children or a wider group of people or a divine power. The quest for dominance flows nicely with the competetive drive it is a brother of within the male hierarchical competetive cooperation structure.

    HeaterN and most feminists probably don`t even understand how integrity and principle, higher purpose and truth are essential masculine virtues and connected to all of the other things. Has any feminist theorist of note, except Paglia of course, celebrated or pointed out ANY masculine virtues?

  13. alcestiseshtemoa

    Low men are on a different plate, because while they are losers in this system just like average men, since low men are into illegal stuff and criminality, they have an outlet.

  14. Feminist Hater

    Most average men are forced, under threat of incarceration and/or career and family destruction, to continue to play. Most don’t play because it’s fun, most play because women have left us with little to no choice, besides utter abandonment or revolution…

  15. donalgraeme

    Actually Alcest, low level women can win out in this system too. Think of all of the good men who tend to marry way downward in order to find a woman unspoiled by the carousel. The return of polygamy/polygny (which is what is really going on here) helps women gain the sexual attention of men far above their league in a way that is not possible when lifetime monogamy is the norm.

  16. Martel

    I love it when they quote the whole 98.2% of CEO’s are male stat (or whatever the hell it is). How the hell does that help some small-town plumber? There’s not some whitemale “team” out there in which somehow the good that flows to one of us just magically improves the lives of all of us.

    But such is the result of lefty groupism in which none of us are individuals, we’re all part of some collective. Because MEN have a lot of power, each individual guy deserves to get screwed.

    And for all the credit lefties give themselves for being caring, there’s nobody more heartless than a feminist observing the plight of a low-status male. They’ll be ignored and taken advantage of, but the moment they break their stoic resolve to just put up with it, they’re ruthlessly mocked without pity.

    “If I don’t want to have sex with you, stay invisible until I need my toilet fixed.”

  17. alcestiseshtemoa

    Feminists, liberal in general, love and care about power. But it’s a sort of twisted, evil power.

  18. donalgraeme

    @ Martel

    The previous one, concerning Mary sending her daughters to college. Your post explains why the MRS degree option is not really present anymore.

  19. ar10308

    Alces,
    You of all should know that Collectivists (Socialists, Communists, Feminists, Facists) care ONLY about power above all things. That is the whole point of Collectivist thinking and action, to remove power from the individual and give it to the Collective.

  20. alcestiseshtemoa

    It seems that liberals either fall into libertarianism (classical liberalism), communism (early modern liberalism) or a marriage between big corporations/big government (late/present day modern liberalism), which can be seen as a marriage between classical and modern forms of liberalism.

  21. deti

    @ SSM:

    “And I still have some trouble with the apex fallacy. I just take it on faith that men here are telling me the truth when they say they couldn’t get girlfriends in their twenties very easily.”

    Yes, it is the truth. But it’s more than just “getting” girlfriends in our twenties. It’s also:

    – getting girlfriends in your teens
    – getting anything at all with girls
    – getting employment
    – getting ahead academically

    I wonder if part of what’s going on here is some projection. Women, being herd creatures, go along with each other and have built in support systems.

    Men are different. From a very early age, we learn that when we get right down to it, we’re basically alone. We’ll have to make our own way in the world, stand alone, be alone, and get to where we want to go alone. We can’t rely on a herd; we have to do it all ourselves. If we fail, we don’t have a support system to help us. We will have to pull ourselves out, alone.

  22. Thankful Husband

    Why? Because mankind is thoroughly sinful and runs away from anything that doesn’t set themselves up as their on god. To acknowledge god-given roles, means you must acknowledge God…as you can see there is an all out assault on anything truly biblical.

  23. Martel

    @ deti: “From a very early age, we learn that when we get right down to it, we’re basically alone. We’ll have to make our own way in the world, stand alone, be alone, and get to where we want to go alone. We can’t rely on a herd; we have to do it all ourselves. If we fail, we don’t have a support system to help us. We will have to pull ourselves out, alone.”

    You perfectly describe the actual situation for men, but it’s not one we necessarily learn at an early age. The knowledge you describe is passed down from father to son, and there aren’t enough decent dads out there to do the job.

    Sons who are over-mothered (or feminized in some other way) sometimes implicitly assume that the world will be more gentle than it actually is. A mother sees danger and protects the kid; the father also protects the kid but knows that the kid’s going to have to go to battle himself someday so he trains him. He trains him not only on how to fight, but to understand the need to fight, that he IS basically on his own.

    Without a dad to show him that, boys will sometimes assume that the world will be as nurturing as mom. When it turns out not to be that way at all, they suffer a dissillusionment that I suspect is pretty similar to the HB 8.5 hitting her wall.

  24. sunshinemary

    Deti, your comment reminded me of another man’s comment I read somewhere, though I don’t remember where. I liked the comment and saved it; here’s an excerpt:

    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.

    [...] 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 [...] 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.”

    I’m not into any rights-ist types of movements but I thought that was an interesting observation.

  25. ray

    I just take in on faith that men here are telling me the truth when they say they couldn’t get girlfriends in their twenties very easily.]

    it’s the standard for most men

    and not believing in the apex fallacy is like not believing there is a female imperative that rules the western world

    you can “not believe it” but the matriarchy is real despite nonbelief, and its structure is the mass empowerment/entitlement of women, “led” by a small slice of (pseudo) alpha-males like buffett, o’bumble, biden, bush….. hm lotsa BaBy boys lol

    esp in the modern world, guys dont really come into their manhood until their thirties, and often forties

    girls and young women usually want experienced, older guys, and my twenties were typical, and ive no reason not to “tell the truth” about it

    unlike a certain gender, lying is not the baseline of my interface with others :O)

    females wanted pretty much zero to do with me until about age 30, tho i never felt bitter about it, they chose who they chose, usually older guys or player-types who acted smooth (i was NOT smooth heh)

    but in my 30s as i grew into myself, it gradually changed, and by age 40 the whole shmeer had reversed, and young females were very interested, and there were LOTS of them

    it’s not the “fault” of young females that theyre usually not interested in twentyish guys . . . but then when those females have gobbled up all the scholarships and jobs via AA and other entitlements, and reach age 30 with fat bank accounts and empowered careers, it’s also not my fault that at age 35 or 40 i no longer want these females, who passed-over me on their way to Hen Heaven

    i want an unpolluted young woman who is sweet and obedient, and is not going to be rebelliing against me for the rest of my life, and using her governments, courts, laws, schools and other tools to coerce my compliance

    this can be forestalled by having girls marry those “green” boys in their twenties, but of course that’s a COMPROMISE, and there is zero (0) reason for modern females to compromise on anything, when all things can either be gotten by propagandist deceit and/or force

  26. Martel

    @ SSM: You won’t males in herds, but you find them in packs. That’s what I see developing in the manosphere and what we’ll need to create on a mass scale to change things.

    We’ll never subvert our own individual interests, but we can form alliances that serve each of our individual needs.

  27. deti

    martel:

    Yes. We form packs, groups, tribes. Alliances with other men, for the purpose of dominating and defeating (and if necessary, using and subjugating) other groups of men. As men, we want to win. It’s easier to win when you have another group of men. But we don’t think in terms of “all men” or what serves the interests of “men” qua men.

    If the pack or packs I am a member of now cease to serve my individual interests, I will leave and find another pack. If my interests and those of the pack diverge, I can leave, or the pack can expel me.

  28. Martel

    @ deti: “If the pack or packs I am a member of now cease to serve my individual interests, I will leave and find another pack. If my interests and those of the pack diverge, I can leave, or the pack can expel me.”

    And that’s the beauty of a pack. The herd is your identity; to leave it is suicide. The pack is a tool, it magnifies your individuality and doesn’t consume you.

  29. Farm Boy

    Women should wary of guys forming packs.

    Packs of guys playing video games.
    Packs of guys going hunting
    Packs of guys riding motorcycles

  30. Farm Boy

    And furthermore, guys can actually be friends with each other. Unlike chicks, where the best one can hope for is a frenemy.

  31. deti

    “What about gangs?”

    Young men find whatever place they can fit in. And in many places in our hollowed out husks of what used to be our cities on the eastern seaboard and Rust Belt, gangs are the only places they do fit in.

  32. Martel

    I would argue (although I admit I haven’t put much thought into it) that gangs can either replicate packs or herds.

    The more destructive gangs (MS13, etc) consume you almost entirely and usually have some pretty awful goals.

    But there are the “gangs” that Jack Donovan writes about that seem more like packs, groups of men that support, encourage, and compete with each other. They give each other lots of crap but ultimately uplift each of their members.

    I haven’t read his book, but that’s what I glean from it (input from others who have welcome). The latter type of gang is more likely to be an informal group of friends than a quasi-institution that makes you get tattoos or wear whatever colors.

    But I’m just theorizing.

  33. tz2026

    But Abiliene is New – as in (literally) New Mexico. New is good, isn’t it?

    The reason we all do it is that there is social pressure to maintain the idiocy. And it is malignant, not benign – it must impose and punish. They don’t even let you not “play”. You must play. Even if you don’t want to.

    Consider the Mom taking the children to the grocery store. The stair step of the multiple children will be noticed. Some will comment “you know, there are ways to avoid it”.

    Envy is the only cardinal sin in which the sinner takes no pleasure, and the game is of Envy. The traditional family was not satisfying in the worldly sense at times but quite safe, protective. For the complaints of libertarianism, feminism throws women to the wolves or whatever else men wish to become while consuming them.

    The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, “Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go. Gamma. Or a fit-test. Or the husband has a streak of sadism and a hidden hydration, but not enough to feign the car breaking down in the middle of the desert, disabling it, and avoiding a messy divorce since his wife and her mother die under tragic circumstances (they do have venomous snakes, or unsafe water).

    The final difficulty is not unlike that which the first Christians faced – anyone can backslide and turn you in to be tortured and murdered by the roman authorities – in this case “Family Court”. We can as long as we believe adopt the tradition, but the nuclear option is always there.

  34. Farm Boy

    Well, it’s still not Lubbock

    Or El Paso. Spent a month there once. Seemed longer.

  35. Cail Corishev

    The problem in a nutshell is that we’re all modernists now (except for a few oddballs, of course, but we have no influence). New is good, old is bad. Forward is good, backwards is bad. “Progress” is good by definition, regardless of what you’re progressing toward. It’s not just group-think, because only “new” ideas are allowed to advance to the point of being adopted by the group-thinkers.

    So we can try anything new, no matter how bizarre — same-sex marriage, for instance — and it’s bound to be good because it’s new. In fact, the more bizarre our grandparents would have thought it, the more innovative it is, so the better it must be, and the more vigorously we can condemn any troglodytes who oppose it.

    The one thing we can’t ever try is going backwards to something we’ve done before, something our grandparents would have done. That would be anti-progress. So we can try spending even more money on the latest education fads in schools, as long as they’re new ideas, but we can’t ever go back to spending less money or using one-room schoolhouses, because that would be going backwards. We can create new government programs and departments, but to ever get rid of one and go back to doing without it would be a hateful tragedy. We can spend tons of money looking for drugs or genetic ways to combat obesity, but we can’t just go back to eating like our grandparents did. We can bring millions of new workers into a country with double-digit unemployment to take jobs that don’t pay as well as they used to, but we can’t expect those jobs to pay a living domestic wage like they used to. That would be going backwards.

    We can’t ever go backwards, on anything. So as soon as we try something long enough for it to start to seem normal to some people, we’re stuck with it. A generation ago, parents would have said you were nuts to drive your kids to sports events 6 days a week, let alone let them carry a phone around. But we tried it, so now we’re stuck with it. A parent who raises kids like his grandparents raised his parents is courting a charge of child abuse. Any sort of family arrangement is laudable — two mommies, two daddies, a village — except a mother in the home and a father who administers spankings. Can’t ever go back.

    So it’s deeper than any one issue or group of issues. Somehow we have to break people of the idea, which has been steadily taking over our churches and cultures for centuries now, that the way we do things now is automatically better than the way we used to do them, and the way we do them tomorrow is likely to be better yet. Note that I’m not talking about straightforward technological progress here; we’re surely better off for having eliminated polio and gotten the horse manure out of the streets. I’m talking about morality and human society (including the way we apply those technologies, sometimes), which we treat as if progress there is as reliable and unidirectional as in the physical sciences.

    I have no idea how to change people’s thinking on that. We’re so thoroughly infected with it that I can’t imagine where to start. Most people who consider themselves hard-core traditionalists want to go back 50-60 years, maybe a century or two, but that’s not nearly far enough.

  36. anonymous

    I still have some trouble with the apex fallacy. I just take it on faith that men here are telling me the truth when they say they couldn’t get girlfriends in their twenties very easily

    If at all. I had many long dateless spells, some lasting years, and only had real 2 girlfriends in my 20s — one at 21 and one at 28-29 (whom I was planning to marry when she betrayed me).

    After her, another dry spell, ages 29-34. IIRC I had 2 dates in those 5 years.

    It was NOT for lack of trying.

    Yet members of the older generation — my parents and their peers — COULD NOT believe that I had such trouble. They’d go on about how a guy with my height, build, looks, and — wait for it — nice personality should have no trouble at all.

    I knew a lot of guys like me. Young-male datelessness or near-datelessness, is a VERY common problem Like the rejected outcast males of harem forming species, we formed our own Christian bachelor pack, as it were. We kept each other out of trouble, at least.

  37. Stingray

    That comment is fantastic SSM and something I have been thinking about for a while. will never work in fighting feminism using feminisms own tools because they are the tools of women. It’s like using a sewing needling to drive a railway spike.

    Also, as he said, men don’t herd. They form armies. Armies are not members of the victim class.

  38. Cautiously Pessimistic

    alcest – “It seems that liberals either fall into libertarianism (classical liberalism), communism (early modern liberalism) or a marriage between big corporations/big government (late/present day modern liberalism), which can be seen as a marriage between classical and modern forms of liberalism.

    Actually, that’s just fascism. It was big in the 1910′s-1930′s. It went out of fashion in the early to mid 40′s, though. I guess it’s making a comeback.

  39. Martel

    @ Cali: I heard somebody say somewhere that the definition of common sense is that you don’t tear down the fence until you understand why it was built in the first place.

    You may see a fence just standing there in a field, and it might seem pretty stupid at first glance. Some people go with that and tear it down. Others do some research and learn that the fence kept out herds or raging cows that used to destroy people’s houses.

    We’re seeing the cows rummage through our communities today(and if you’ve ever seen a raging cow, it’s nothing to sneeze at).

  40. Martel

    @ Stingray: Very true about how men don’t do “victim” well.

    One of Alinsky’s most pernicious “rules” was to use your enemy’s own moral standards against him (in the book he dedicated to Lucifer). Men don’t like to whine, we grin and bear it. When there’s a problem to be solved, we just shut up and solve it.

    But when your adversary is consciously using that virtue against you, if you continue to be virtuous in the same way, you’re only fostering their vice. You end up like Orwell’s Boxer, working harder and harder, just to wind up as dog meat.

    We’re starting to wake up and recognize that sometimes self-interest and virtue can actually coincide. I don’t want to be a victim. I want no help. I’ve no interest in citing historical grievances.

    But there are things that need to change, dammit, and I’m not going to just shut up, be noble and be exploited any longer.

  41. anonymous

    I knew a lot of guys like me. Young-male datelessness or near-datelessness, is a VERY common problem

    Continuing… At a church I attended in my mid 20s — my first evangelical church actually — there was an epic dating drought affecting almost the whole congregation. Despite a large pool of eligibles of both sexes. We didn’t understand it at all, and just about tore our hair out.

    Then one man — a STEM PhD candidate in the same program as me, and my roommate for a while — got engaged to a young leader/counsellor of the women’s ministry. I actually broke the glorious good news to a girl who had friendzoned me for years, and to my amazement (but perfectly in accord with my Mom’s cynical prophecy), she collapsed in tears! As did a lot of other women in the church!

    There were two female counsellors who handled the personal problems of the women of the church. They compared notes, and as it happens, the older counsellor had 12 women, and younger counseller had 7 women — a total of 19 different women between them — who came in for counselling because they had such strong. unrequited romantic feelings for this one guy, that they seriously thought they needed psychological help In a supreme irony, the 20th one to fall for him, was the younger of those counsellors — and that’s the one he married.

    Now let’s think about this. A large church filled with plenty of reasonably appealing singles of both sexes, with good gender balance, sees almost no marriages happening for years — despite a very strong commitment to abstinence till marriage (stronger than I’ve ever found elsewhere), and an equally strong professed desire on the part of pretty much all the singles, to get married.

    And ONE guy at that church, has 19 (you read that right, nineteen) women fall so hard that they sought psychological help over it. That being the case, they are probably the tip of the iceberg, possibly representing dozens more women who had “oneitis’ for him but never admitted it to anyone.

    Anyway… when he finally got engaged, all of the sudden there was a rash of dating and maybe a dozen weddings or so, took place in the next couple of years. CONCLUSION: ALL THE CHICKS WERE HOLDING OUT FOR HIM.

    What was so special about him? He was physically, of normal build, looks, etc. He was a nice guy, a devout believer, and smart — but so were a lot of other guys there. He was the son of a preacher, which may have helped. He was interested in missions — but, so were a lot of others there. I still to this day CANNOT fathom why ALL the women held out for HIM and snubbed all the rest of us. Maybe sometimes Alpha — Apex status — just boils down to pheromones.

    Anyway…. Most of us were totally dateless and this guy could have dated nearly ALL the women of the church if he’d wanted to. If they’d all been heathens — or even if he’d just been a little bit more morally flexible — he could have fucked every last one of them, but he was a rare Righteous Alpha, and God bless him for that.

  42. anonymous

    19 different women between them — who came in for counselling because they had such strong. unrequited romantic feelings for this one guy, that they seriously thought they needed psychological help

    In his defense I should point out — he did nothing to provoke these feelings in them. He dated only 2 women when knew him, one from another church, and the one he married. He was NOT gaming or playing these girls. He was just a natural Alpha, heaven only knows why, and he was offered a glorious harvest which did not sow, and which he righteously refused to reap.

  43. Cail Corishev

    For all men, the push to feminize them and socialize them to believe that their natural masculine tendencies are bad has created a generation of boys who don’t feel like society cares about them or needs them. Feeling unnecessary and unappreciated feels horrible to anyone but is particularly poisonous to men.

    That understates it. If you’re a straight, boring, white male with traditional tendencies (say you own a couple guns and the gay guy at the office gives you the creeps, not that you’d ever be rude enough to say so), our society hates you. It wants you to die, right after it siphons away your productivity. Am I exaggerating? Not by much. Not many such men are aware of this yet, but they’re starting to wake up to it. The question is whether they’ll drop out and sit poolside, or rebel and take charge again. I’m not optimistic, but I’m starting to think I’ll live to see the crash, which I didn’t used to think. Things are picking up speed.

    These men would have preferred to find a wife and have a traditional marriage

    This will probably be taken the wrong way, but I’ll say it anyway: I don’t think most of the men we’re talking about were actively seeking marriage. I wasn’t when I was 18 years old; I was seeking sex. But I was always open to marriage and assumed that it would be part of the package. I might not have to wait until marriage to get sex, but one would surely follow the other fairly quickly. When I did finally get a woman into bed, I assumed we’d be getting married. The day I graduated from high school, if I’d had a girlfriend and she’d said, “Let’s get married and start having babies,” I would’ve signed up right then. So I wasn’t out doing the hard work of finding a good wife and “preparing my house” the way the Bible says to. I could have done more, if I’d known what to do. If I had, maybe I would have found one. But I was always willing.

    And there’s the rub: traditionally, willingness to marry was all you needed from men, because women provided plenty of desire for marriage for both of them. A man found a woman he wanted to have sex with (I had no trouble with that part), and she kept the goodies locked up (more or less) until she got a ring. Once women stopped wanting marriage before the age of 40 — and in many cases became outright opposed to it — that left no one pushing the couple toward the altar.

    What some people seem to be saying now is that, since women aren’t marriage-minded anymore, men must take over that role. As a practical matter, that may be the only way we could fix things, because men fix things, women don’t. But it’s a pretty tall order to expect men to start demanding marriage before sex and things like that. It’s possible, and a truly virtuous man would do so, but it’s working against our male nature in a way that it wasn’t for women when they did it. (And as has been pointed out many times, it only takes a handful of bucks to breed a whole herd of does, regardless of how virtuous the other bucks are.) Women have a natural desire for marriage for protection and provision, which has been beaten out of them by feminists, but it’s still there, buried. Men don’t have that same underlying desire to build on.

  44. Stingray

    That should have said “The MRM will never work in fighting . . .”

    But there are things that need to change, dammit, and I’m not going to just shut up, be noble and be exploited any longer.

    Exactly. Yes. There is nothing, NOTHING noble about being exploited. The virtues that feminism are currently exploiting were considered virtuous when women would reciprocate with their own.

    We’re starting to wake up and recognize that sometimes self-interest and virtue can actually coincide.

    I would say that in many cases they always did coincide. Only women couldn’t see it. We could not see that reining in our worst impulses was actually good for us and was loving us. We used some men’s brutish nature to hurt all men. We saw a man who was actually loving his women (the verb love) as the same as the man who beat his women. They both caused fear so they must be one in the same.

  45. ospurt

    I’ve driven the Abilene Paradox road…and most of the other roads in the area….a lot. It’s my neck if the woods. The picture is from a place farther west. Abilene isn’t a lot of places. West Texas is not for the faint of heart.

  46. Frank

    And ONE guy at that church, has 19 (you read that right, nineteen) women fall so hard that they sought psychological help over it.

    Mein Gott in Himmel.

    I grew up with the thinking being bashed into my head that men were the shallow ones. That if you took 1 very hot girl and 19 average or mildly attractive girls, all the men would completely ignore those 19 girls to chase after the “trophy.”

    My time in church and social environments has been limited over the years, but even from my cursory experience, it seems like I had a range from which I was attracted to girls, whereas the women apparently weren’t attracted to anyone, or had a range so narrow that the guy they were looking for simply didn’t exist.

    Anonymous, I’m wondering, maybe what you saw was a chain reaction of sorts. One girl is seriously attracted to the guy, and her friend notices this and becomes equally as attracted to him, not so much because he’s an alpha, but because her friend was so attracted to him, so there must be something about him, right? And then a friend of her friend sees this and starts becoming attracted too. Next thing you know every girl in church is now pining for the guy. There was a name for this effect but I forgot what it was called.

  47. donalgraeme

    @ Cail

    I liked your comment, but have a problem with this statement:

    “Women have a natural desire for marriage for protection and provision, which has been beaten out of them by feminists, but it’s still there, buried. Men don’t have that same underlying desire to build on.”

    This really isn’t true. Women have a desire for protection and provision, not necessarily marriage. We are observing the truth of it even now. In the past, if a woman wanted protection and provision, marriage was the ticket to that. Now, however, with the State providing protection (such as it is) and with both the State and modern technology allowing women to provide for themselves, marriage is not on the minds of most women until they hit the Wall. And even that is more about a desire for children in a socially acceptable manner than it is a desire for marriage.

    Monogamous marriage for life is a male invention (or God inspired one). In the state of nature, women are drawn only to a small percentage of men, everyone else has to do without. Anon’s story about that Evangelical Church is one bit of evidence to support this. Monogamy was pushed by men, for men. It also works out for women too, and so it was acceptable until very recently.

  48. anonymous

    My time in church and social environments has been limited over the years, but even from my cursory experience, it seems like I had a range from which I was attracted to girls, whereas the women apparently weren’t attracted to anyone, or had a range so narrow that the guy they were looking for simply didn’t exist.

    Yea, women have MUCH narrower filters than men. Imagine a group of 100 young single men, and 100 young single women, who’ve never met before, thrown into a social situation and allowed to intereract long enough to get to check each other out. (Say, going to the same Singles Ministry meeting every week for a couple months).

    I don’t have hard stats on this but based on things women and men have told me over the years, these are rough guess numbers:
    A typical guy will find roughly 40-50 of the girls attractive.
    A typical girl, will find 2 or 3 of the guys attractive.

    Furthermore the guys’ tastes are more variable than the girls. Eg, John and Bill both may like 40 of the girls, but not necessarily the same 40. A majority of men prefer hourglass figures, but a significant minority prefers slender, angular women, and a much, much smaller minority like them fat.* And men are all over the map on hair color, height, breast size, and other preferences. Some highly attractive women may catch the eye of nearly all the men, and an unfortunate few may attract little or none, but MOST women will attract at least SOME male attention.

    However, women’s filters are much more consistent. Nearly all the women will want the SAME 2 or 3 guys, and the rest of the guys will be ignored and snubbed until those top guys are off the market.

    *Be warned, girls, there are FAR more fat girls out there, than there are “chubby chasers”, so if you can POSSIBLY get your weight down and keep it down, you vastly increase your matrimonial chances.

  49. alan

    Cail,

    A parent who raises kids like his grandparents raised his parents is courting a charge of child abuse. Any sort of family arrangement is laudable — two mommies, two daddies, a village — except a mother in the home and a father who administers spankings. Can’t ever go back.

    I wish that you were wrong, but you’re not. In fact, I’ve met with the same vicious attacks when trying to raise our kids properly. Even worse, it was coming from immediate family members along with our society at large.

    You’re right; as a whole, we won’t ever reverse course. It’s an individual effort — on the part of men. My wife and I are becoming experts at saying “NO” to anyone who tries to horn in with expertise on raising our kids or influencing our priorities. We always run a huge risk that serious consequences will befall us, but we’re holding on — and getting as far away from the diseased herd as possible.

    The solution requires a MASSIVE dose of male drive and independence to reject the herd mentality, leave a counter-productive pack that has served our goals in the past, forget any idea of acknowledgement, and go it entirely alone if necessary. This is completely opposite of the “irrelevant man” caricature that we hear celebrated in the media.

    Screw them all.

    Unfortunately, this hard attitude is all that saves our family from the meat grinder. So be it. I can’t yield or all might be lost. I keep praying for strength. It’s the only source of help that i can count on. Best to everyone fighting the good fight.

  50. donalgraeme

    By the way, if I am right about “Marriage 1.0″ being a male imposed social construct, then that means it will only be restored through male action on a massive scale.

  51. anonymous

    Monogamous marriage for life is a male invention (or God inspired one). In the state of nature, women are drawn only to a small percentage of men, everyone else has to do without gang up on the Alpha and overthrow him in order to get any action,..

    Otherwise how did non-Alpha genetics get passed on?

  52. Looking Glass

    @donal:

    It’s middle-male imposed on the upper Men. Muhammed got a whole lot of volunteer fighters by limiting Men to 4 wives. Think about the prospects for a middle of the road guy in 500 AD Vedic society, if 4 wives was a selling point limit.

    @anon:

    AMOG is AMOG is AMOG. What you got was the sub-sector version of it. The girls were holding out for their Christian Alpha (something he probably established the first time he walked into the room, and it was just accepted after that) and as long as he was “available”, they wouldn’t “settle”.

    This entire topic came up in some study of marriage patterns in 1800s Germany, I believe. (I’d have a hard time track down who was talking about this) Any time a young Baron was on the market, the marriages in the upper tier families in the region ground to a halt. Everyone was gunning for the Titled Alpha (in theory) of the region. Once he was off the market, the girls were married off pretty quickly, but at an older than average age. Hypergamy is ever present.

  53. Novaseeker

    Otherwise how did non-Alpha genetics get passed on?

    The sneaks. Lots of that. Also, recessive genes in the pool.

    But really monogamy unlikely came about by the betas overthrowing the alphas. It came about because the alphas decided that it was better to have peace with the betas, instead of constantly fighting off their challenges, so that they would be more loyal and build a stronger tribe, capable of conquering other tribes that were less unified and constantly dealing with challenges to the harem holders.

  54. anonymous

    Otherwise how did non-Alpha genetics get passed on?
    The sneaks. Lots of that.

    No, sneaking is also an Alpha move.

    Also, recessive genes in the pool.

    They’d be selected out.

    It had to be the invention of weapons, by Betas.

  55. donalgraeme

    @ Anon

    Novaseeker addressed a lot of it, but there is something else to consider. How does ganging up on the Alpha make any kind of improvement? If there is only one guy at the top, why would anyone agree to gang up on the the current guy at the top when there is no guarantee that they will end up on the top? Also, lets not forget that about such matters men tend to be lone-wolves; we may cooperate against common threats or to hunt, but when it comes to mates each man is on his own.

  56. Cail Corishev

    Women have a desire for protection and provision, not necessarily marriage.

    Good correction. Women have a desire for protection and provision, and their fathers and the male-led Church and male-led society used to insist that marriage was the way you got that. I begin to sense a pattern….

  57. Farm Boy

    We’re seeing the cows rummage through our communities today(and if you’ve ever seen a raging cow, it’s nothing to sneeze at).

    ’round these parts, they come every Wednesday. Tarnation, that’s tammarah!

  58. Frank

    Novaseeker addressed a lot of it, but there is something else to consider. How does ganging up on the Alpha make any kind of improvement?

    In anonymous’s example, I have to wonder if there’s any amount of beclowning yourself with game that could finally shift at least one of the girls’ focus away from the AMOG to you instead.

    What’s the solution here for the guy in such a church scratching his head at this and wondering what to do? Does he up his game, or write off his losses and date outside the church, or find another church and try again? I ask because I may very well find myself in this predicament once I go church hopping.

    And can the behavior of a girl is so fixated on the AMOG really be excused or forgiven? That’s another issue I have, because it’s hard to work up the incentive to run “game” watching women in said church behave the way they do. I’d be like, screw this, they’re not worth it, and just leave.

  59. Farm Boy

    We’re starting to wake up and recognize that sometimes self-interest and virtue can actually coincide.

    Paging Adam Smith

    The greatest Scotsman after Montgomery Scott.

  60. Novaseeker

    It had to be the invention of weapons, by Betas.

    Weapons upped the ante, no doubt, in terms of the violence, but the key was the alphas deciding they wanted beta cooperation to kill other tribes (and take their women) rather than retaining constant beta challenges. It was adaptive, but also on the part of the alphas. Given the dynamic between alphas and betas in general (and which we can also see in our culture), it seems highly fantastical that there was a successful beta revolt against alphas. It could have been, of course, that a credible threat created by the introduction of weapons upped the ante to the extent that the alphas then considered it better to have the beta cooperation (perhaps also to ward off predation from other tribes more effectively). But the alphas always remained in charge. Always have been.

    There have been plenty of “sneaky fucker” betas. That’s the whole point. He sneaks into the harem and has sex with the alpha’s females, rather than fighting the alpha because he can’t beat the alpha. It’s a beta move, not an alpha one. The alpha move is beating up the other alpha, killing him, and taking his females.

  61. Cail Corishev

    By the way, if I am right about “Marriage 1.0″ being a male imposed social construct, then that means it will only be restored through male action on a massive scale.

    That’s my conclusion. I know some MGTOW guys hate that kind of thinking, because, “We didn’t cause this problem; why should we have to fix it?” Fine, but if aware men don’t fix it, who will? No one else is capable. If you don’t care, then obviously you don’t have to do anything. But if you’re a man who doesn’t like the current situation and wants to leave the world better than you found it, if only in your home or social circle, you’re pretty much stuck taking action yourself.

    I don’t think there’s much hope of fixing society on a wide scale; we’re bankrupt morally as much as financially, and it’s going to have to crash and start from scratch in both respects. But there are things a man can do to draw the line for himself and his family. Every man who refuses to be a white knight anymore, or who speaks out against birth control and other feminist power-grabs, or who just laughs in the face of a woman who says, “Let’s Just Be Friends,” is doing his small part.

  62. Novaseeker

    How does ganging up on the Alpha make any kind of improvement? If there is only one guy at the top, why would anyone agree to gang up on the the current guy at the top when there is no guarantee that they will end up on the top? Also, lets not forget that about such matters men tend to be lone-wolves; we may cooperate against common threats or to hunt, but when it comes to mates each man is on his own.

    Another reason why I think it was a peace pact between alphas and beta challengers based on the need for beta cooperation — either to keep other tribes at bay, to conquer other tribes effectively, and so on. In every social structure there have been alpha leaders. The introduction of monogamy did not create social egalitarianism, it simply meant that the alpha leaders decided to give up sexual monopoly in exchange for beta cooperation, to make the tribe stronger and focus on outdoing competitor tribes, which at some point became a survival priority.

  63. sunshinemary

    Novaseeker, your comments are interesting. Is there anthropological data to support that? How long in human history has monogamy been the norm? I mean, I know there have always been a few males who had harems, but when was there a time when all the females were controlled by one or two males? I’m asking because I genuinely don’t know. That scenario sounds like non-human primates, where there is one alpha who mates with all the females; when a new male challenges and deposes him, he often will kill any infants to bring the females quickly back into estrus. That sounds like what you are describing.

  64. an observer

    Cail,

    These men would have preferred to find a wife and have a traditional marriage

    When i hit thirty, i only wanted a girlfriend that wouldnt flake constantly.

  65. an observer

    What’s the solution here for the guy in such a church scratching his head at this and wondering what to do? 

    Show up at a party with a georgous girl that none of the church girls have seen before. When asked what the situation is, just say ‘its complicated’.

  66. donalgraeme

    @ Sunshinemary

    I’ve seen data before which indicates that the number of men who procreated in the past was small, only 40% or so. I will try and find a link to back that up, but it makes sense given what we know of male and female behaviors. It sounds brutal to compare humans to other primates, but lets be honest, how different is the carousel really from any less creature’s mating scheme?

    I doubt it was only ever one or two males in control of most larger groups, but the ratio has always favored Alpha or top-tier men. I wrote a post discussing Monogamy a while back, here is the link:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/an-analysis-of-human-sexual-strategies-part-2-monogamy/

    Its not perfect, but I think it conveys a few important ideas. I really need to wrap up the series with a Biblical take on things, and what God wants for and from us.

  67. an observer

    Betas are civilisation builders. Alienate them, confiscate their earnings, seize assets, prevent them being educated or employed by favouring women, remove custody rights to their children and men have no reason to continue playing the game.

    Oh, wait. . .

  68. UnicornHunter

    @Nova, it’s not that I completely disagree with what you’re saying, but what you’re writing seems to assume this hard binary division alpha/beta. No one is all alpha or all beta and in any group, people exist on the continuum. Add to that, the way that people segregate into different areas of focus or interest which helps create space for multiple top dogs and it gets real complicated real quick.

  69. Novaseeker

    How long in human history has monogamy been the norm?

    This isn’t really known.

    There is speculation about what life was really like at the hunter-gatherer stage of things, but it is inherently speculative.

    There is some paleontology which indicates that the size discrepancy between human males and human females has decreased over time. There are issues of sample size here which make interpreting the data difficult (and have led to different views), but some have surmised that this indicates a decline of the winner-take-all scenario in favor of more cooperation (i.e., relatively smaller males because it wasn’t only the big ones who were able to kill the rest/keep them at bay who were reproducing).

    Much of the speculation arises because it has been observed in simian species that the less dimorphic ones (i.e., less size difference based on sex) feature less violence among males (like Gibbons, who haver very little dimorphism and are naturally monogamous), while the ones that are very dimorphous, like gorillas or orangutans, feature harem like structures and ultra-violence among mature-age males for sexual access. It has therefore been surmised that (1) the level of human dimorphism, which is more than gibbons but much less than gorillas, suggests a history not of natural monogamy, but not of gorilla-like harems, either, but a mix and that (2) this may have changed over time with males getting smaller over time relative to their larger size than females, which may indicate a shift over time away from polygyny and towards monogamy.

    It’s a very, very controversial area precisely because (1) it’s not clear whether the analogues from apes apply to human pre-history, and, if they do, where humans really fit into the picture (currently there is a kind of “war” as to whether we are closer to bonobos or closer to chimps, with the feminist wing of the science lobbying heavily in favor of the sex-crazed, omni-sexual bonobos instead of the quasi-tribally organized, somewhat cooperative and somewhat competitive yet violent world of the chimps), and (2) the actual paleontological record is a very small sample size. It’s fundamentally a speculative area and likely always will be unless we are able to defy the laws of physics and build a successful time machine.

  70. Norm

    Nice post Sunshine. This reminded me of an old country song by George Hamilton IV called “Abilene”. Of course the one in Texas not Kansas. With apologies to Abilene KS. Nice song also.

  71. Novaseeker

    it’s not that I completely disagree with what you’re saying, but what you’re writing seems to assume this hard binary division alpha/beta. No one is all alpha or all beta and in any group, people exist on the continuum. Add to that, the way that people segregate into different areas of focus or interest which helps create space for multiple top dogs and it gets real complicated real quick.

    Once things get to a certain level of complexity, certainly. In deep history, which is where the limbic system type drives come from, including sex drive/attraction and so on, likely much less so.

  72. Frank

    What’s the solution here for the guy in such a church scratching his head at this and wondering what to do?

    Show up at a party with a georgous girl that none of the church girls have seen before. When asked what the situation is, just say ‘its complicated’.

    THREAD WINNER

  73. an observer

    Read a theory that said tribal groups that encouraged monogamy over polygamy would have progressed and developed faster than alpha dominated competing tribes. I can see why.

    Unfortunately, our mature civilisation appears to be riding the crest of a wave downwards into irrelevance in emphasising rights for women and minority groups, polygamy and serial monogamy over marriage and hard monogamy.

  74. Martel

    “Read a theory that said tribal groups that encouraged monogamy over polygamy would have progressed and developed faster than alpha dominated competing tribes. I can see why.”

    I find it funny how a random collection of desert fairy tales advocates social structures that promote stable societies through regulating our instinctual natures in ways that make them beneficial instead of violent.

    It’s also weird how letting go of superstitions like marriage leads to a return to primitivism. It’s almost like those uneducated fishermen knew something we don’t and that our scientifically-minded academic elites don’t understand biology or something.

    But that can’t be right.

    [ssm: Ah, but people’s perceptions of reality must be made to conform to the approved ideology. And those desert fairy tales are not the approved ideology.]

  75. Novaseeker

    Read a theory that said tribal groups that encouraged monogamy over polygamy would have progressed and developed faster than alpha dominated competing tribes. I can see why.

    Right. It seems logical due to increased cooperation, which has many competitive benefits vis-a-vis *other* tribes who are consumed by internal competition. But, alas, the data is sparse and likely ever will be.

  76. Farm Boy

    It’s also weird how letting go of superstitions like marriage leads to a return to primitivism

    Welcome to the Feralocracy.

  77. anonymous

    How does ganging up on the Alpha make any kind of improvement? If there is only one guy at the top, why would anyone agree to gang up on the the current guy at the top when there is no guarantee that they will end up on the top?

    Alpha has 19 women, there are 19 of us. We each get one….

    it seems highly fantastical that there was a successful beta revolt against alphas

    Not to me, it’s the FIRST thing I’d think of, if I found myself in a lawless environment with no other way to get a chick.

  78. sunshinemary

    See, we’re just doomed to spend our lives on the bus to Abilene, people. How do I know? Well, let us look in at my alma mater to see how our tax dollars are being used (highlighting mine):

    Reproductive Justice: Activists, Advocates, Academics in Ann Arbor

    Host Department: Women’s Studies
    Date: 05/29/2013 – 05/31/2013
    Time: 1:30 PM – 5:15 PM
    Location: Rackham Building. Pre-conference at Hatcher Graduate Library.

    Join us for an innovative meeting to advance reproductive justice by exploring the intersections of activism, advocacy, and academia. To date, advocacy groups have advanced
    reproductive justice agendas around the country and the world. We believe it is time for academic institutions to step up to support their work by providing a forum for meaningful
    dialogue and the development of research agendas and applied projects. This meeting will allow advocates, activists and academics to collectively explore how we can design
    research informed by advocacy and generate useful and reliable data and findings that promote reproductive justice.

    Over the course of the conference we will:
    1) exchange knowledge and recognize points of convergence and difference;
    2) create and energize new relationships; and
    3) develop collaborative research agendas informed by advocacy.

    That took my breath away. They are just coming right out and saying that the goal of the research is to find data that they can use for their social agenda. They aren’t even trying to hide it behind a veneer of objectivity anymore.

    We are so, so f—-d.

  79. Novaseeker

    Not to me, it’s the FIRST thing I’d think of, if I found myself in a lawless environment with no other way to get a chick.

    Likely there was a transition where the alpha enlisted “favored” males, in enough numbers, to keep the others off for a while. Then when other tribes attacked and almost won, the flip was made to monogamy to enlist the cooperation of all of the lesser males, and minimize intra-tribe violence. We will never know what happened, really, but I really doubt that betas every successfully revolted.

  80. sunshinemary

    “But Sunshine Mary,” you may be saying to yourself. “I do not even know what is meant by the term ‘reproductive justice’.”

    Reader, that is because you are a White Male. As such, you are very bad. That is why we need lots of your money – for reproductive justice.

    Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social, and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality, and reproduction for ourselves, our families, and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

    Because only girls reproduce, I am afraid that reproductive justice must be limited to every aspect of females’ lives.

    “But Sunshine Mary, I think males play a part in reproduction, too. Why is reproductive justice limited only to females?” you may be asking yourself.

    Because patriarchy and white privilege, that is why. Now do you understand? Good. Now hand over the research money. The bus for Abilene is about to depart.

  81. Johnycomelately

    “Otherwise how did non-Alpha genetics get passed on?”

    Even pagan, orgy loving, homosexual emperors, Mithraic blood sacrificing Rome instituted ‘morality’ laws banning adultery.

    When the state’s unit of account is individual taxes it behooves the emperor to take care of the family. When it is usury it doesnt matter what happens to the family.

    But I guess that is another story.

    Gamers suffer from the fallacy of presentism, in the past women werent considered to have legal capacity and any beta had higher standing than a woman.

  82. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM, we are not f—-d. They’re going to tell big obvious fibs AND GET CAUGHT.Years ago, I was comforted by Abraham Lincoln’s statement:
    You can fool all the people some of the time.
    You can fool some of the people all the time.
    BUT, YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
    Let them dig as big a hole for themselves as they like.
    I’m reminded of Dalrock’s advice to Susan Walsh: “First rule of holes is to stop digging”.
    She showed good sense and abandoned her contention. Femminists won’t. They’re wacky that way.

  83. Novaseeker

    They are just coming right out and saying that the goal of the research is to find data that they can use for their social agenda. They aren’t even trying to hide it behind a veneer of objectivity anymore.

    Oh they’re likely more clever than that. I’d suspect that the response to that criticism would be that, of course, they are not suggesting that studies be constructed in a non-objective way, but that the *topics* of the studies, and the *prioritization* of the studies be organized in a certain way, so as to produce studies that emphasize certain aspects while not bothering with others. So, for example, more studies on sexual disparity based on income in sub-saharan africa, and fewer, or no, studies on what underlies the so-called pay gap in North America. What doesn’t get researched doesn’t get reported, even if the actual research is conducted in a relatively objective manner (which it often is not, of course).

  84. FuzzieWuzzie

    Frank, yes, it would work and I wouldn’t a donut against you.
    Mmmmmm, honey glazed donuts, yuuuummmmm!
    If you did do that, you’d have to contend with a whole flock of them.
    Interesting new problem for you?

  85. an observer

    Will the feminists stop digging holes though?

    Or like wile e coyote, will they keep digging through the cliff until they fall out the other side?

    Taking their bastard spawn into dirt floored huts. They’ll still blame men though, all the way down.

  86. FuzzieWuzzie

    Oberver, you just made me think of “Big Red” and a grand piano falling out of the sky.
    “This not one of my best days”.
    Roll credits and play “Merry Go Round Broken Down”.

  87. nightskyradio

    Martel – @ Cali: I heard somebody say somewhere that the definition of common sense is that you don’t tear down the fence until you understand why it was built in the first place.

    G.K. Chesterton’s fence here – http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2012/03/chesterton-fence.html

    He sums up Cail’s comments above about “progress” with this – “…It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease.”

    anonymous – A majority of men prefer hourglass figures, but a significant minority prefers slender, angular women, and a much, much smaller minority like them fat…*Be warned, girls, there are FAR more fat girls out there, than there are “chubby chasers”

    The ones that do exist tend to be rather devoted to the ideal, though. If you’re a chubby chaser, your harem awaits.

    Farm Boy – Paging Adam Smith

    The greatest Scotsman after Montgomery Scott.

    Groundskeeper WIllie would argue that with you.

  88. nightskyradio

    SSM – “But Sunshine Mary,” you may be saying to yourself. “I do not even know what is meant by the term ‘reproductive justice’.”

    Reader, that is because you are a White Male. As such, you are very bad. That is why we need lots of your money – for reproductive justice.

    Clearly, as a Woma/yn, you knew I was about to ask that question, and in your Feminine Grace dispensed your Wisdom for me and the rest of the white male commoners. Risking loss of pay/ status/ leisure time due to a pregnancy is obviously Wrong, hence abortion must be made freely available for all Womyn for Great Reproductive Justice. Men, all your babies don’t belong to you.

    [ssm: All your babies are belong to us.]

  89. Pingback: Beta Training | Alpha Is Assumed

  90. Frank

    If you did do that, you’d have to contend with a whole flock of them.
    Interesting new problem for you?

    Wait, the donuts or the women? The donuts are an easy choice. (all of em)

    As for the women, what was that line in the movie, the Fifth Element?

  91. an observer

    For a desert resident predator, wile e sure got a lot of mail from acme.

    They didnt have ebay or paypal then, either.

  92. FuzzieWuzzie

    “Reader, that is because you are a White Male. As such you are very bad.That is why we need lots of your money- for reproductive justice.”
    Tonight, I heard that men in Sweden will be paying 7% more in taxes to offset the “pay gap”.
    Do you think a few of them will move to Minnesota?

  93. an observer

    Observer, how did he pay for all that stuff?

    Western union, perhaps. But then, what photo id might he have had?

    “Authorised road runner consumer – licensed to cull.”

  94. TheShadowedKnight

    Just a quick aside on the subject of the revolt of the betas; the California cop hunter, the Washington D.C. snipers, and the Boston bombers taught the observant that one or two men can turn an entire city or state on its head, and that women are attracted to the perpetrators of these acts. How long until we have packs of feral betas–or to use the AGP SSH, Omegas and Gammas–who realize that society is busy extracting all it can from them until they are bled dry start to form up? They may not be significant at first, but as they become more high profile and more successful in their endeavors, they could end up growing. This effect is already evident in black and hispanic culture as men are left to more and more violent means to impress a woman. White men, on the other hand, have better access to quality arms, proper use of those arms, and as the Crusades and the World Wars have shown, angry young white men can do untold amounts of devastation if given the means and opportunity. We may be privileged to have a front seat view of these sexual revolutionaries in action. Marauding bands of the castoffs of society is a recipe for disaster in the metropolitan regions of the USA, especially if they start to organize. Imagine a world where your entire city goes under lockdown on a monthly basis because some rejected young man wants to fight back against his exploiters, and being an agent of the legal system is a targeting identifier, with lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and of course, policemen, being hunted down after a systematic personal destruction by way of divorce court. Not a pretty sight. Unlikely, as well, but I do believe that the publication of the women crushing on the bombers may just incite more angry young men to violence, and it is not even fair to call them crazy anymore. It is entirely logical, in a terrifying and self-interested sense. Killing people you already dislike and you.get laid for your troubles? What is not to like?

    The Shadowed Knight

  95. alcestiseshtemoa

    *Hopefully this doesn’t sound “racist” but I’ll just say it*

    Feminists as a whole seem to idolize the “noble savage” and grass hut matriarchies. The most ironic types (white liberal women) are those obsessed with Africa (and who think that humans came from Africa, another long reason why I disdain and reject the entire theory of Darwinian Evolution).

    The entire continent of Africa as a whole is matriarchal and egalitarian (I should know, I have lived here in Western-Central Africa in a Portuguese speaking country named Angola and I’m half African). Women (African women) rule in Africa in general, save pockets left by Latin explorers in Western-Central Africa or the Arab slave traders in East Africa.

    The matriarchal feature explains the dysfunction of these societies. It’s upside down and completely against the true order.

    Even a place like North Africa, where Islam is more predominant, sometimes has polygamy (which is a matriarchal feature in general).

    It’s no wonder white liberal SWPL feminist women have such a liking to Africa, like adopting African children (international adoption) and do dangerous mission trips. It’s an unconscious desire of the feminine imperative, to lead to the society it wants.

  96. tbc

    @alcest- I don’t know if your statement qualifies as racist, but is seems rather presumptuous to extrapolate your experience/knowledge to an entire continent of over a billion people, 60 nations, and hundreds of ethnic groups even in a contemporary context, much less historically.

    And certainly mentioning the evolutionist argument that humans came from Africa as a reason, (even if not the primary one) for rejecting the argument seems a bit… odd. After all what difference would it make if humans did come from Africa? So what?

  97. alcestiseshtemoa

    @tbc

    It’s important, because if humans did really come from Africa, then that means that the Patriarchy is a gigantic social construct and a lie, because the sexual dynamics here are less sexual dimorphic, more matriarchal and egalitarian (there’s differences between matriarchy and egalitarianism, but a perfectly egalitarian society is a fluke, because that’s what MRAs want and that’s never going to happen).

    but is seems rather presumptuous to extrapolate your experience/knowledge to an entire continent of over a billion people, 60 nations, and hundreds of ethnic groups even in a contemporary context, much less historically.

    Here we go again… *sighs*

    It’s just not my experience. I’ve talked to Namibians, Nigerians, Ethiopians and South Africans for example. It’s something that some implicitly know, but almost nobody wants to talk about this out in the open.

    It’s not just racist, or proud, it’s also something that African women don’t want to hear, refuse to hear and want this hate fact (thought crime more like it) to never, ever for all time to be spoken about and will destroy a person for it. I’m not paranoid.

  98. tbc

    @alcest- one doesn’t follow from the other logically. Simply because humans originated in Africa doesn’t mean that patriarchy is somehow *just a gigantic social construct and a lie. The two are absolutely unrelated in fact. Whether man came from Africa, or the Garden of Eden was literal or figurative, it still remains that God set a certain order and mankind has rebelled against it — no more so in Africa than anywhere else. Africa is not more or less in rebellion against God than any other place, though the rebellion may look differently.

    As for your sample… it is still too small to extrapolate and apply to a whole continent, despite your condescending *sigh*. Even if it were true, then your conclusions don’t logically follow from that premise.

    You see I talked to different white women from all over the United States and they are virgins but have lots of emotional problems and think that the emphasis on virginity among white women is what is ruining America, and since I’m half-American it must be true (though no one wants to talk about it *sigh*) because its just something they implicit know (i.e. feel).

  99. nightskyradio

    SSM – What about gangs?

    Stingray – men don’t herd. They form armies. Armies are not members of the victim class.

    All that’s needed is a few more beta cubicle drones to finally decide they’ve had enough… http://www.flickr.com/photos/87463097@N07/8738899263/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    Humor aside, TheShadowedKnight’s comment reminds me of the movie Falling Down. The main character (who looks much like Dilbert, which I’m fairly sure is no coincidence) is an “angry white male” who goes on a rampage after being pushed around too much for too long. I’ve not seen the entire movie, so I won’t comment on what seems to be a liberal slant on Those Stupid Conservative Guys, but the final straw that pushes the character over the edge is his ex-wife divorcing him and filing a restraining order to keep him away from their daughter,

    A lot of guys have been shoved around a lot worse than Michael Douglas’ character was, so either the people who made the movie are wrong about angry white males being fragile and snapping, or there’s going to be a major, uh, issue in the near future.

  100. alcestiseshtemoa

    When i hit thirty, i only wanted a girlfriend that wouldnt flake constantly.

    Any luck in finding one, an observer?

  101. alcestiseshtemoa

    A herdish, centralized, anarcho-tyrannical, all-powerful state is woman like. Men tend to organize in small to medium sized groups and have a different dynamic.

  102. alcestiseshtemoa

    There was one video game where the “heros” killed a man who was under a restraining order and where the woman was awarded child custody.

  103. Looking Glass

    @tbc & alcestiseshtemoa:

    I won’t get in between the discussion, but the term you are looking for is “Big Man” dynamic. It’s endemic to Africa, amazingly destructive on any social foundations and utterly supported by the women (as they actually run most of it).

    Africa is pretty much a hell hole due to it. Only places that really don’t flip back and forth between “hell hole” and “only slightly dangerous” were previously run by European power, though mostly the English. There are always exceptions, but they haven’t tended to be stable for very long.

  104. tbc

    @looking glass – I wasn’t looking for a word, but I’m much obliged for your offer of one, though I will kindly have to refuse it. Since all of Africa was run by European powers (with the exception of two) during the height of the European imperial project, it may well be the that the flip-flop you described is as much due to European influence as anything else. But again, thank you kindly for you offer of a word. I think we could rather reserve it for another time.

  105. Tim

    Red pill women need to come up with an alternative to feminism, allow me to suggest “synthesism” (if you don’t like the name come up with another). The insight of synthesism is that women and men reach their greatest potential and greatness when they strive to become the ideal of the opposite. I recently saw the old movie “Wife vs. Secretary” with Clark Gable, Myrna Loy, and Jean Harlow. It isn’t a great movie but it gets by on the mountains of charisma of its stars. The lesson: when men and women make an effort to become what the opposite sex likes, you get Clark Gables and Myrna Loys; when you just try to make yourself happy, or just follow your individual desires and never take the desires of your other into consideration, or never do anything to make your man (or woman) happy, as feminism advocates, you get fat miserable shrill nightmare people. Clark Gable is a female ideal (if you don’t like Clark Gable substitute one you do like). But to be Clark Gable you have to learn masculinity and charisma (not Game, as we usually understand it). Clark Gable is also a male ideal, but attempting to become the female’s ideal man, you become a man’s ideal man. Myrna Loy is a male ideal (she became known and typecast as “the perfect wife”). In attempting to become the male ideal of the ideal women, women become women’s ideal as well.

  106. Matthew King

    Here’s how you solve the “Abilene Paradox.” Honesty, fortitude, and bluntness.

    cf. Alexander and the Gordian Knot

    (Do we even teach boys about Alexander anymore?)

    Matt

  107. Cautiously Pessimistic

    @nsr – Because ‘Falling Down’ was a liberal slant on the angry white conservative male, as the movie went on, backstory was revealed that made the character less and less sympathetic. Eventually it was implied that he was just an abusive asshole with rage issues. And a loser that couldn’t hold down a job. And a murderer.

    Another potentially good movie ruined by The Narrative.

  108. Cautiously Pessimistic

    “…how did he pay for all that stuff?”

    ACME credit card.

    or a government grant. What, like they wouldn’t give millions of dollars to a coyote?

  109. Martel

    Regarding the movie “Falling Down”, apparently the main character was initially sympathetic and it went through tons of edits to make it fit “the narrative” a bit better.

    The first previews for it showed it as almost a dark comedy in which the main dude was an everyman hero. Then they pulled the preview and did a few months more of edits. The next previews showed a darker movie and the main character was more of a villain.

    And an article that I find relevant to the initial reason we end up in Abeline, sunk costs, is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/how-to-walk-away/275833/

  110. Farm Boy

    The next previews showed a darker movie and the main character was more of a villain.

    We can’t have anything challenging the narrative, can we?

  111. Farm Boy

    They are just coming right out and saying that the goal of the research is to find data that they can use for their social agenda

    It might be better that they are open about it.

  112. anonymous

    In anonymous’s example, I have to wonder if there’s any amount of beclowning yourself with game that could finally shift at least one of the girls’ focus away from the AMOG to you instead.

    In that situation, I think, no. I don’t believe that any amount of game could have broken that unwilling monopoly he held on the church chickies’ affections.

    To this day, looking back with Game understanding, I still can’t fathom why he was so far, far more preferred than other comparable guys at the church. It can’t be explained physically, and he was an extremely righteous guy who did nothing to provoke their interest, nor did he take advantage of it. He was the antithesis of Roissy.

    And since I can’t understand what he did (if anything) to garner such interest, I can’t reverse engineer it or copy it.

    What’s the solution here for the guy in such a church scratching his head at this and wondering what to do? Does he up his game, or write off his losses and date outside the church, or find another church and try again? I ask because I may very well find myself in this predicament once I go church hopping.

    At various times, in various churches I experienced several different “romantic” problems….

    1) Alpha Distraction…… In my first evangelical church (which was fairly large) — as noted in my ultralong post above — ALL the single women were fixated on ONE guy, and would not date anyone else til he was off the market. (By the time that had happened, I was part of a churchplant project and was no longer at the main church, so I missed the dating frenzy that followed his engagement). At another church (see 3/4/5 below) I had to compete with wealthy celebrities, and once again, it was very difficult for myself or any other guys there to get dates, though at least there it wasn’t totally impossible.

    2) Lack of Interest….. In a small church, there were simply not any single women interested in me (despite the absence of a local unclaimed alpha). Over the space of a couple of years, I asked out every single one of them and was shot down. (The pastor, who knew me well and thought the girls were making a foolish mistake in rejecting me, blessed my plan to start visting other churches.)

    3) Rumors… As my income and status rose in my 30s, I found, after a certain point, that it was suddenly very easy to get dates everywhere EXCEPT what was then my primary church. WFT? Long afterwards, due to someone’s confession, I learned the reason: most of the single women at the church had had heard awful rumors about me, sometimes accompanied by warnings, “Oh, don’t date him, he’s [insert a falsehood]“. An undeserved bad reputation is romantic death.

    4) Uncoolness…. In one church (same church as reffered to in (3), many of the congregation was either involved in the entertainment/music industry, or wished to be. Many of the others were surfer types. As a science geek — even a tall, goodlooking, longhaired science geek — I just wasn’t “cool” by local standards. Even one of the pastors warned me, at one point, that the girls there had a very low view of me — when a girl in a counselling appoiintment had asked about who the good, solid, marriageable men were, he brought up my name and her response was, “Ewwww!”.

    5) Anti-Dating teaching….. “I kissed dating goodbye”, no-dating policies in singles ministries, “go out in groups, be friends first”, etc, etc. If the girls are gullible enough to fall for this nonsense, they may be hopelessly unattainable.

    There is only one remedy for any of these problems. DATE OUTSIDE YOUR OWN CHURCH. their singles ministries, get on Christian dating websites, go to Christian concerts, conferences, and events (and have your game on at conferences, because the bad guys surely will), ask your friends and family (if any of them are Christians) for suggestions and setups. You have to get yourself out there….

  113. anonymous

    just once I’d like to make a giant post with no typos… How did I lose a whole chunk of sentence?

    There is only one remedy for any of these problems. DATE OUTSIDE YOUR OWN CHURCH. visit other churches and their singles ministries

  114. Frank

    There is only one remedy for any of these problems. DATE OUTSIDE YOUR OWN CHURCH. visit other churches and their singles ministries.

    I don’t have a church, so this will be easy, since my plan was to go church hopping anyway. I would have no intention of seeking fellowship or worship, it’s all going to be about game.

    Sigh. I have become whom I’ve hated.

  115. Just Saying

    “Women hate it. Men hate it. Why do we keep playing?”

    Because women only “hate it” later in life when things start turning against them – i.e., when their looks are fading and they find the guys who’s attention they used to get, are dating the younger women. And only the men that are looking for relationships hate it – or the beta guy that gets used as an emotional tampon and gave up on women long ago.

    The alphas love the present system – they get all of the women, and can keep commanding the attention of the prime meat (sorry ladies that is what you are) in the 18-25 age bracket. Those women are the ones that love the present situation – they get the trips, the attention, and enjoy things just the way things are. So they have a different hot guy when they want him, with no strings attached – this is fine for the men as well.

    And there are an unending supply of 18-25 year olds to enjoy. When the women start seeing things turn against them that’s when they start to complain, but by then the guys have given up and caught on to women’s using them as emo-tampons, and the alphas have moved on to the younger women.

    So the only some women hate it, and some men hate it… And they don’t count (they have no power) – the women don’t care about the men who hate it, when they could change things – when they are in the 18-25 age bracket and enjoying all of the attention. And when they do start to care, those guys have stopped playing the game and use women for their own pleasure but have given up on any type of relationship. So the ones that care – aren’t the ones who drive the dynamic…

    Women love the present set up – when they have the power to pick and choose – but they hate it when they lose that power, and by then, no one cares… :)

  116. Miserman

    SSM, I just found a meme that made me laugh and yet made a great point about modern feminized society. I do not know how to upload a pic, but it shows a heavenly picture of a fairly attractive woman smiling over an infant wrapped a pristine white blanket. Underneath the caption says,

    Dating a mom is like continuing from someone else’s saved game.

  117. Butterfly Flower

    @Novaseeker: In your comments, were you alluding to the works of Christian anthropologist William Graham Cole?

    If you were, than you do realize Cole’s theories are slightly outdated? Modern anthropologists have a much more comprehensive grasp of the early Bronze Age.

    […] it seems highly fantastical that there was a successful beta revolt against alphas

    But there was. The revolt was industrial. Following the neolithic agricultural revolution, women became attracted to the material luxuries offered by Betas. The weak skinny Beta was suddenly a whole lot more sexy with his snazzy manufactured goods. Alphas hunt animals in the woods and live in caves, they do not innovate.

    In the world’s oldest recorded love story, the goddess Ishtar rejected suitors who offered her gifts of food – she was wooed by the wool textiles of the innocuous pastoral deity Tammuz.

  118. anonymous

    The weak skinny Beta was suddenly a whole lot more sexy with his snazzy manufactured goods. Alphas hunt animals in the woods and live in caves, they do not innovate.

    Beg to differ. Aspergery Betas can be good hunters. Alpha traits not required.

  119. Butterfly Flower

    Beg to differ. Aspergery Betas can be good hunters. Alpha traits not required.

    Well, in modern hunting with all its high tech gizmos, yes. The only serious hunters I’ve ever known were, as you said, Aspergery Betas.

    I was alluding to ancient cavemen who would tackle deer with their bare hands and a few sharp rocks.

    The transition from hunter and gatherer society to settled agriculture, was purely the work of Betas. Obviously women were enchanted with society, enough to leave the Alphas in caves and mate with the farming Betas.

  120. anonymous

    Well, in modern hunting with all its high tech gizmos, yes. The only serious hunters I’ve ever known were, as you said, Aspergery Betas.

    I was alluding to ancient cavemen who would tackle deer with their bare hands and a few sharp rocks.

    The oldest and lowest-tech of hunting, is the persistence hunt — and it’s basically long-distance running (the ultimate Beta sport) til the animal collapses from heat exhaustion. At which point even a slender pygmy can clobber the immobilized animal with a simple Acheulian hand-axe.

    Alphas are better at fighting. Betas are the ultimate hunters. That’s what the 2 genotypes are for. Easy living selects for Alphas, who are better sexual competitors. Harsher enviroments select for Betas.

  121. Butterfly Flower

    Honestly, a Betas’ skill in hunting is irrelevant, because they domesticated animals. Chasing animals in the forest was no longer necessary. So they focused their energies on more important matters, like building society.

  122. an observer

    Alcest,

    Asked for a girlfriend and got a wife instead. Got way more than i bargained for. By then, i had no expectations of ever getting married. Damn hypergamy.

    Was matchmade and had an animated discussion about the will of God at first meeting, as you do. The woman who threw away my contact details has been my bride of twelve years now.

  123. Entropy is My God

    “A lot of guys have been shoved around a lot worse than Michael Douglas’ character was, so either the people who made the movie are wrong about angry white males being fragile and snapping, or there’s going to be a major, uh, issue in the near future.”

    We all dance around this, like it might infect us, while we cling longingly to our smartphones and worship at the celebrity/NFL/Hollywood/DC altar. It is all a puppet show and all of us are entranced. I see no group of angry men ready to sacrifice comfort for the sake of freedom. ALL women and 99% of men in America find it easier to worship at the feet of Mammon.

    Now screech, screech like harpies, that everyone here is different and hear the quiet chortle that is your only response. Talk is cheap and all we are doing is spending discretionary wages. None of us, even those beaten and abused by our wives, our law enforcement officials, our courts, our governments, we sit idly by, placidly accepting our subjugation at the hands of violent radical feminism.

    We are being cowed even now, as we pretend to be in some great awaking of this “manosphere”. No action is being taken, and if it is (I refuse to list instances of what action may represent on the grounds that it will more than likely be deleted) it is heralded as treason, as sedition, as evil. This web site say that it is Christian, so take this for consideration: Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” What clearer way to call good evil good, than to call righteous and correct those who corrupt our money, our families, our laws, and our very lives.

    Our country, these united states of America, a country that I personally and many other maligned men have fought and bled for, has abandoned not only us but any basis of Godliness that it was founded on. There is no saving it, there is no fixing it. Hoping for it to remain and be fixed is asking to wish to save evil, to fix evil. It cannot be saved. To pray for America is to pray for its end. Our civilization is a puss filled rot infested sewer, and it must be cleansed.

  124. an observer

    Frank,

    Temporary tattoo and a motorcycle.

    At least then they won’t accuse you of being gay.

  125. anonymous

    Honestly, a Betas’ skill in hunting is irrelevant, because they domesticated animals

    If you’d ever been involved in raising livestock, you’d know that the line between hunting and ranching is actually a rather thin one. Dogs and to a lesser extent horses may truly ‘love’ us, but cattle, sheep, goats… no, they’re just managed game, for all practical purposes.

    [ssm: OK, this is totally off topic, but it popped into my head for some reason. Do your boys read or listen to the audiobooks of Hank the Cowdog? These are some of the finest audiobooks for children on the planet. The author reads them and does a fantastic job. Honestly, they are good for any age kid; HHG and I even listen to them.]

  126. anonymous

    the line between hunting and ranching is actually a rather thin one.

    I’m not the first to observe this…

    … a [game] keeper is only a poacher turned outside in, and a poacher a keeper turned inside out.
    Charles Kinsgley, “The Water Babies”

  127. an observer

    Entropy,

    The us is a mature empire. As such, it may show few visible signs of losing power, whilst it has been hollowed out from within. Oh sure, the economic markers suggest certain doom. But that may take a while. The aircraft carriers ar impressive, but the currency is toast.

    Beer swilling Joe average wont believe any of it until its too late to leave. Perhaps when hes rounded up for detention.

    What was the old saying?

    “Its a recession when the neighbour loses his job. Its a depression when you lose your job.”

  128. Farm Boy

    reproductive justice

    My concept of reproductive justice would be to cut the taxpayer umbilical cord to the baby mamas.

    Somehow, I don’t think that is what they have in mind. Perhaps I am not cut out to be an academic

  129. The Shadowed Knight

    If anyone wants to see what the face of the revolt of the betas is going to look like, take a look at westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com. Those are some committed men, and what they have in mind looks like it is going to be far more brutal than anything the world has ever seen before. They lack a solid appreciation of the entire picture, but put the Androsphere and the Libertysphere together and you have a large group of disgruntled young men on one hand and older, experienced fighters on the other, both with no love for the current system. I am curious as to what would happen should the two meet up. Personally, I plan to leave the country. I am tired of fighting for a people that I despise. The USA is not worth the blood, sweat, and tears.

  130. Anonymous age 71

    I have never been in Abilene. We have driven many times from Amarillo to McAllen. But, we cut across country from Lubbock, then hit the Interstate. At Sweetwater, west of Abilene, we cut south to I-10, then to San Antonio, Anderson loop, and I-37, then Hwy 281 to McAllen. So, we avoid Abilene.

    Off topic, Sweetwater is one of the friendliest towns we have encountered in the US, right after Gadsden Alabama.

    We used to stop at the Motel-6 outside the town. We take long walks in the evening on long trips if it is safe. We asked if it were safe to walk around town. The desk clerk assured us it was, any time of day or night, and we did walk around once well after dark.

    The town is multi-ethnic. No matter, black, Hispanic, or Anglo, rich or poor, when we waved and smiled at people they waved and smiled right back. In the North, the blacks would not smile and wave back, nor would always the other groups.

    If I did not live in Mexico, I would investigate retiring in Sweetwater, or Gadsden.

  131. Pingback: Maybe feminists have a secret money tree in Abilene. | Sunshine Mary

  132. Pingback: Links and Comments #9 | The Society of Phineas

  133. Myrrdin

    Alcesti-

    That Africa has certain social qualities now does not mean it has always had them.

    I haven’t the slightest bit of trouble reconciling an African or near-African origin for humanity and any other principle. People change, predominantly for the worse. First principal of my religion.

  134. Pingback: The future of human mating: monogamy, polygyny, or promiscuity? | Sunshine Mary

  135. ghostof503

    “rather than fighting the alpha because he can’t beat the alpha”

    I call BS on that one. He’s cuckolding an alpha by enacting a shadow-op. It’s a different kind of alpha, one moving beyond the traditional paradigm.

    “The alpha move is beating up the other alpha, killing him, and taking his females”
    Impregnating an alpha’s harem member and presumably making said alpha take care of your beta offspring. You’re still a beta after making an alpha take care of your beta spawn?

  136. Pingback: When we get to the Feminist Utopia in Abilene, will there still be no male-female pay gap? | Sunshine Mary

  137. Pingback: Do campus sexual assault centers and programs create the so-called “rape culture”? | Sunshine Mary

  138. Pingback: Flying to Abilene on the Concorde. | Sunshine Mary

  139. J. Galt

    the obvious answer of how traditional gender roles are restored is of course a catastrophic collapse of society to the point that traditional gender roles become relevant again. Our societal success and abundance have made the roles seem irrelevant, collapse and a return to scarcity will revitalize the traditional gender roles. Or more succinctly the Tytler cycle:

    Bondage
    Spiritual Faith
    Courage
    Liberty
    Abundance
    Selfishness
    Complacency
    Apathy
    Dependence
    Then starting over with Bondage

    I would guess that we are in the Abundance to Selfishness phase of the cycle, but perhaps as far along as the complacency/apathy area.

  140. Cole

    I’ve read a few posts on here and I didn’t necessarily disagree with them, but a lot of what you said here is off base. You can’t say that because 2nd wave feminism came in the 60′s, and happiness has been declining since then, that that means happiness has been declining because of feminism. A million things are different now and no causation can be demonstrated.

    Another thing, you suggest that all or nearly all women eventually become mothers as they were always meant to do and then are happy. This is true for a lot of women, but just because they became mothers does not mean that they filled the traditional gender role. They may still work, or the dad may stay at home, or they may employ a nanny, or many other options. Expanding on this, even if she does stay at home, the traditional duties may be divided or she may still not hold traditional religious or social values related to raising the child or keeping the home. So just because biologically women tend to want to reproduce does not suggest that it’s the traditional gender role that is drawing them in and making them happy.

    Finally, mainstream feminism does not say that women are not supposed to get married or have families. It just says they shouldn’t feel that they have to, or that they have to do it a specific way. Is that so bad?

  141. Looking Glass

    @Cole:

    If that was what they pushed, it would still be pretty terrible. Mostly as during the “traditional days”, Women actually had the options that Feminists claim they want now. Only major difference was the inability to sleep with a large collection of sexually attractive Men, if they could draw that attention. (Which is what most of it is about, when it’s not about supremacy over Men)

    Though you are correct about the direct Correlation/Causation issue. Minus plenty of other research that lines up with the conjecture.

  142. Pingback: When we get to the feminist utopia in Abilene, all the plumbers will be women. | Sunshine Mary

  143. Pingback: Lady economists in the Feminist Fauxtopia in Abilene will earn a lot more than the gentlemen economists do. | Sunshine Mary

  144. Exfernal

    Monogamous marriage for life is a male invention (or God inspired one). In the state of nature, women are drawn only to a small percentage of men, everyone else has to do without gang up on the Alpha and overthrow him in order to get any action,..

    Otherwise how did non-Alpha genetics get passed on?

    Serious duels (till death or submission), for example. A successful Alpha generates a lot of envy.

  145. Pingback: Subsidizing insanity | Sunshine Mary

  146. Pingback: The CEO wives of Abilene and their submissive caregiver husbands | Sunshine Mary

  147. Pingback: In the feminist fauxtopia in Abilene, all the black men will be housewives. | Sunshine Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s