Sticking the Landing is for the Elite

A special recipe of traits is required for past riders to get into marriage.

Readership: All
Length: 960 words
Reading Time: 3.5 minutes

Introduction

Dalrock had a post or two about how “Marriage is for the Elite“.  In this post, I’ll explain why this is, and why some women fail to land or crash.

There is an elite subclass of women who follow Phase 1 of the Feminist Life Script (i.e. riding the carousel through college and their early careers), and then are able to enter into Phase 2 of the Script (i.e. achieve marriage in their late 20’s or early 30s). Women in this subclass have the following traits going for them (ADIEU).

  1. Attractiveness / Looks
  2. Discipline
  3. Intelligence / Smarts
  4. Education
  5. Upbringing

If a woman has this “success mix” bag of tricks, then she can get away with a LOT in her 20s, and stick the landing in her late 20s/early 30s with a “fine” husband. The man will not be a super hunk like those she was dating when she was 24, but more than fine for the purposes of a long term husband and child raising, especially when the pressures of the Wall ramps up, all of her peers are getting married, and the baby clock is ticking.

In fact, there are entire communities where the women have essentially stuck the landing. Almost all of them are gifted both genetically in terms of appearance and in other ways (intelligence, drive, discipline).  Most of them come from solid families of origin as well (generally almost never chaotic ones).

Other outcomes vary depending on what part of the puzzle is missing.  Here, I’ll examine a few of the possible combinations of ADIEU. Intelligence — either through formal education (which is preferred) or otherwise — is assumed for this class of women, other than for the final category, so this element is omitted in the following discussion. The women in the photos are rough estimates of the sort — most of the women who fall into the various categories are not generally well known and are not celebrities, and the lives of celebrities will always only approximate the reality of the lives of non-celebrities.

Discipline, Intelligence, and Upbringing (AKA “Dating Under the Influence” or DUI)

Women who have the smarts, discipline, and upbringing, but lack the top tier looks tend to end up frustrated with men because they are proverbial girls who can “sleep up” in their early to mid-20s (and often do), but either they passed over one of these guys for marriage when they were asked in the late 20s or, more commonly, they aren’t good looking enough to get one of the better quality guys to marry them when they are around 30. So they end up writing articles for The Atlantic and Medium about why men in their 30s all suck and are all Peter-Pan man-boys, or how all men are obsessed with looks. Some of them salvage things late with a guy of lesser quality than the ones who were available in her 20s. Some of them end up like Kate Bolick.

Kate Bolick in 2011, age 39.

Attractiveness, Intelligence, and Upbringing (AIU)

Women who are good looking and smart and have at least a fairly good upbringing but lack personal discipline end up either having quiet abortions to cover for their “unforced errors”, or have some sort of traumatic breakup with Chad-gone-bad, after which they sometimes try to run away and force a reset by changing city/job/etc. Always be skeptical of the attractive woman who seems to check the boxes but just turned up in Seattle out the blue from the East Coast at 32, looks kind of worldly, and is “open to new beginnings”.

Smart, and hot like the sun, but just as dangerous

Attractiveness, Discipline, and Intelligence (AID)

Women who have the looks, smarts, and discipline, but come from a chaotic family background are the most tragic of the bunch, because often they really are trying to do things the right way, and stick the landing in the educated striver class, but they just can’t get completely free of the gravitational pull of the familial black hole. They cannot avoid getting sucked back into their past life at the worst possible times.  Unreconstructed siblings, cousins, and parents often play cameo roles in wrecking the chances of girls like these when they are otherwise doing everything right, or trying to.

Some of these women can actually stick the landing, but in general, it’s only the ones who go cold turkey, more or less, on the family ties, so as to limit the chaotic contagion. This requires them to keep their family at a very long distance, limiting contact with them, and seeing them infrequently. Those who do this more effectively move thousands of miles away and keep it that way.

Bad beginnings…

Attractiveness, Discipline, and Upbringing (DUA)

Women who have looks, discipline, and a good family background, but are not that smart have a very hard time sticking the landing in the upper middle striver class, because men in that class tend to screen for mom smarts. Often the best bet for these girls is to “looksmax” things, the female way, which employs both good genetic looks and discipline, and go for one of the relatively few remaining trophy wife positions.

For those who try to stick the landing this way, the key issue is in obtaining access to the men who are looking for this in 2020, and this is where family connections come into play.

When this approach goes south, this kind of girl can go spectacularly off the rail, accessing OnlyFans and so on as a way to cash out on her discipline-honed looks, and the less well-connected her family is, the more likely this kind of outcome is (which isn’t sticking the landing).

No landing to stick for Paris, being a wealthy heiress, but still single at 39.

Related

This entry was posted in Courtship and Marriage, Female Power, Feminism, Hypergamy, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Personal Presentation, Sexual Authority, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Sticking the Landing is for the Elite

  1. Scott says:

    I’ve mentioned it elsewhere, but the archetype couple that has always confounded me is the uber left wing, boomer hippie couple (like from “Meet the Fokkers”) who are sill together in a stable decades-long marriage.

    Both were probably crazy sexual before marriage, met in college, got married, had kids, stayed married. We all know couples like this, who by all accounts should not have made it.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Scott says:

    AID is a crusher. Most of us who have everything but the upbringing can attest to the power of that one little piece. My trajectory looks like that, just from the male side.

    A lot of sincere, genuine effort to make LTRs work, I think on both sides, but without the external support/modeling to carry it through.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Because of my educational path, I have rubbed shoulders with a lot of ADIEUs, but they could always sense the other-side-of-the-tracks vibe I give off. Ergo, those relationships were dealt the blow of THEIR family/friends/social circle never really accepting me. Which is fine when princess is trying to piss off her parents, but you cannot play permanent bad boy in those scenarios.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah that’s a great point.

        People don’t often discuss these kinds of differences between people, but they do notice them and act on them. I also have experienced the same, given my own background, in terms of the kinds of people I have come across as well, and there is a vibe/aura/sensibility that is a give-away as to whether you are “one of them” or not.

        Very few people have the full ADIEU pallet. Most people are “missing” something or other, and the fortunate are the ones who are only missing one element because we can still be relatively successful — just not quite as much.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        The reason we don’t discuss them is because we have convinced ourselves that moving around between the classes is a thing Americans can do. Sort of “unsinkable Molly Brown” type stuff.

        If anyone could have done it, it would be me. I have the credentials, but not the pedigree, so I am still a rough around the edges doctor* with asterisk meaning something like:

        *son of an immigrant, family never amounted to anything, new money.

        I cannot degree/buy my way into that world, and I have tried.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        To them, I look like a pig, wearing lipstick

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yep.

        My first taste of that was the roommate that I was placed with first year of college. His dad was a real estate developer in the Silicon Valley area, which even in that day meant what one thinks it means. It was a completely different social class, and that was obvious — him and his friends and so on, just was a lot of instantly obvious intangible qualities that were so different as to comprise utterly different worlds.

        My next taste was when I started work in Manhattan about 7 years or so later. Again, it was clear — distinctions were clear and obvious between newcomers like me (family background) and people whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers were doing this job as well. Just different worlds. Best that could be hoped was collegial getting along and working together, which generally applied — those social barriers were simply not crossed, not out of cussedness, but out of lack of ability to really relate, utterly different worlds.

        And the thing is … it isn’t really about money, or at least it isn’t primarily about it. Money is a fact of life of most people in that social class, but not all of them make a lot of it themselves — there are artists and professors and so on in that crowd who are not making large incomes. But they live in a context where there is a lot of money around them — family members, friends, relatives. It’s a different world entirely socially. And because it isn’t about money primarily, you can’t “buy your way in”. You can buy your way into the “striver” class, but that’s it … the progress from that to the other group is generational, not personal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Nova, so, when you mention the “cognitive elite” in your comments (you’re not the only one to use that phrase) it doesn’t seem like the “cognitive” part is the most notable thing about them. Yes, they’re not dumb.

        I work around extremely bright people – scientists and engineers who are very high IQ – I imagine brighter in terms of actual intellectual horsepower than the elite. They’re not part of the elite – doesn’t seem like elite is just cognitive.

        Like

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I have the intelligence, looks, and discipline. She had the upbringing(kinda), looks, and intelligence.

        Lots of dysfunction in both families. My family roots are blue collar, farming, mining, construction. Her family roots are business owners and moderate amounts of familial money.

        I have the intelligence and tastes to be UMC, but frankly don’t care about the things they think are important. I have a fair number of overlapping interests that are traditionally working class, but my tastes, other interests, and language leave them uncomfortable around me. So, I’m often a fish out of water; more like a platypus.

        Try reconciling a family where “Shut up.” was a horrible insult, a devaluation of a person as a human being, and a home where it meant stop flapping your gums because if you don’t you’re going to be on the receiving end of some physical violence(slapped face, spanking, whatever).

        I never understood why the men on that side of the family were at best cool and polite. I only figured out later, because I obviously didn’t fit.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott, “Which is fine when princess is trying to piss off her parents …” says it all. It’s like a real life version of Conway Twitty’s “Tight Fittin’ Jeans”. She knows it won’t work, but she’s ok with it for the short term excitement.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I get what you’re saying, but don’t try to apply ADIEU to men. The concept and permutations apply only to women. Even the concept of “sticking the landing” applies only to women.

        There isn’t a lot of movement in socioeconomic status for men. About the only thing that moves men up is admission to some elite somewhere – professional, cognitive. Money, discipline, and looks don’t do it. There are plenty of plumbers and tradesmen earning well into 6 figures who will never be “elite”. There are lots of men who aren’t very bright or ambitious, but who have skated a long time on Dad’s money and connections, and they’re “elite”. There are plenty of small town/small city lawyers with money and ambition who came from farm towns and working class families. The “nouveau riche”, the “ugly American”. They have money, but aren’t elite and never will be.

        Donald Trump exemplifies this in many ways – a fantastically wealthy man but of relatively prole upbringing, because his father was also wealthy but prole. Men like this are incredibly disciplined, savvy, intelligent, and spend more money in a day that I make in a year. But they have pizza and beer at the local dive bar tastes. They have 4 bedroom colonial in the burbs, go out with the boys on Friday, backyard BBQ on Saturday night, church and the Yankees/Cowboys game on Sunday lifestyles. That’s where Trump comes from – people made a big deal about his eating ketchup on his steaks. That’s a very Midwestern, prole, “regular guy” thing, and it’s something that was politically powerful. He, like Bill Clinton, are able to connect with vast swaths of “regular people”. It works beautifully. But it works because it’s genuine – it’s because that’s who Trump and Clinton really are at their cores. Trump is a regular guy who made it big; Clinton is white trash with a gift of gab and an innate political mind. Those are simultaneously their strengths and their weaknesses.

        Liked by 6 people

  3. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Paris hilton is realy a nobody without her uber-rich grandfather!Just like her parents!These ”elites” are built on sand,not a rock!Hence why paris is your typical woman,she just has granddaddys money to buy the right brains of the genetic elite as consultants for her ”brand” that would’nt even exist without her daddys daddys money!Paris hilton&kim k would be just two more only fans women without their grandfathers&fathers money&fame!P.S.What happended to paris hilton’s ”successful” singing career?That dos’nt prove all anyone needs to know about these empowered wimminz elites&elites in general?

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      and she has an ugly face too – bow wow

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Between the jawline and the RBF, that is not the best image of her face.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        She came by that rbf honestly.
        Just an awful person it was gratifying when South Park laid it out (so to speak) and she kinda disappeared from the front pages into relative obscurity

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        She may have disappeared from the headlines, but as one of the matriarchs of gaining notoriety via loose morals, she lives on through scantily clad social media darlings.

        Liked by 4 people

  4. Random Angeleno says:

    One item is missing: personality. It can make a huge difference if a given woman has a sufficiently pleasant and feminine attitude. Same for men, substitute with masculine charisma and confidence.

    When one is unattractive and too introverted to have much personality, I don’t think the rest of it matters whether man or woman. Thee people have a better chance of hitting the lotto than sticking the landing. They’re recognized as the misfits if one sees them hanging in the milieu they’re from.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “When one is unattractive and too introverted to have much personality, I don’t think the rest of it matters whether man or woman.”

      I don’t know many girls who are extremely introverted. To me, introversion in a woman is attractive or at least not unattractive in any way. Of the “sweet” type of girls, I prefer the more introverted/shy type to the more “bubbly” extroverted type. But then again, I’m introverted too, so maybe I’m more comfortable with another introvert.

      One thing I have noticed over the years is my wife has become more introverted like me – it’s as if I’ve “converted” her LoL.

      Like

      • elspeth says:

        Yeah, my husband converted me into more of an extrovert. I’m still nowhere near as good at maintaining connections with people as he is. I’m not sure how or why, but people and they like him, and he’s genuinely curious about people’s lives. I tend not to be.

        However, I’m a lot less closed off and a lot more socially active than I was before I met him, and even more than 10 years ago. If anyone told me I’d be hosting people in my home, going to parties, etc. on a semi-regular basis, I’d have laughed out loud at them. Go figure.

        We women do tend to conform to our men. Well, sometimes men seem to conform to their women, but that doesn’t look like much fun, at least not from the outside looking in.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        It would make sense that you don’t know many introverted girls. How would you get to know them? They’re introverts and spend much of their time outside of social environments. Fwiw I was always an introvert.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Elspeth, Mike is an extrovert too. Very very extroverted. I’ve had to adjust some and his career required a lot of entertaining and so forth but it has never come naturally to me. Often it has been very painful. Retirement has been sweet.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah Elspeth, I feel like I wrecked her – made her more antisocial like me.

        @Liz,

        I guess I mean extreme introverts. The comment I responded to mentioned people who are so introverted that they haven’t much personality. I don’t know many girls like that even though I know a lot of girls at work.

        I guess I’ve never met a girl who is so introverted that she seemed to have little personality.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Novaseeker says:

    “@Nova, so, when you mention the “cognitive elite” in your comments (you’re not the only one to use that phrase) it doesn’t seem like the “cognitive” part is the most notable thing about them. Yes, they’re not dumb.

    I work around extremely bright people – scientists and engineers who are very high IQ – I imagine brighter in terms of actual intellectual horsepower than the elite. They’re not part of the elite – doesn’t seem like elite is just cognitive.”

    Cognitive elites are a different set.

    The ADIEU crowd are largely the elite the way most people consider “elite” to mean. Some of them are smart, some not so much (Paris isn’t bending any spoons).

    “Cognitive elite” is also not just the smartest people. “Cognitive elite” is the group of people who are highly educated and smart and in specific positions where they can use those attributes for power and influence.

    So, a NYT reporter who is from the lower middle class who graduated from UVA or UNC or what have you has, together with his/her associates in the Times Newsroom, a massive cultural impact that they have access to because they have been admitted into the cognitive elite set. That reporter probably doesn’t earn a lot of money, relative to others working in Manhattan at least, and also isn’t from an elite background, and if you saw them in a bar or an airport you wouldn’t think “Elite”, like you would if you saw bow wow Paris. But … they’re members of the cognitive elite, because even though they may look like the guy standing behind them in line to board the plane, they are wielding a LOT more power, and it’s due to things they can do with their brain.

    Same holds true for Silicon Valley. Same holds true for Hollywood. Same holds true for a small percentage of academics who can actually move things in a certain direction.

    So you have the “social elites” (i.e., movie stars, Paris Hilton, politicians, athletes, Instagram stars, etc.), and then you have the cognitive elites.

    You also have the “striver class”. The “striver class” are most of the “upper middle class” — that is, people who went to college, sometimes graduate school, work as professionals in major urban areas, are comfortable or better financially, and tend to think very similarly. A subset of the striver class are “cognitive elites” if they happen to be (1) in an area that has broader cultural influence and (2) are an influential person in that area, and not, for lack of a better word, a “cog”. Most of the striver class are not cognitive elites but are simply strivers who work jobs somewhere in corporate America and have no real influence on the world themselves, but … their presence magnifies the impact of the actual “cognitive elites” because (a) they know them (they are of the same class, education, live in the same places) and (b) they think like them. Hence the rise of “Blue Suburbia”.

    When people use the word “elite” politically, they are generally sloppy about who they are talking about. It can be any number of things — running from the pols in DC to Wall Street to universities to people who drive Lexus/BMW/etc to all educated professionals to people who vote for X and so on and so forth. Elite is used differently by everyone to mean “people I don’t like”, but usually without much precision other than it involves someone who has “more” of something, be it power, money, influence and the like. But the actual “social elites” are different from the “cognitive elites” who are also different from the “striver class”.

    And … none of them actually run things. The people who run things are the “ownership class”, and they are … almost all off the radar. Which is where they like to be. I have only come across a handful of such people in my life, because they don’t work for a living mostly, so you don’t come across them much unless you have specific things you do that expose you to them. They are not the cognitive elite, the social elite (in a public sense) or the striver class … they are the ones who own the institutions that make the cognitive elite influential, the social elite known and popular and the striver class employed.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Elspeth says:

    Someone mentioned personality and I echo his sentiments. I watched an interview Florida Gov. Ron Desantis did with Tucker Carlson and he talked about leaving the West coast of Florida to go to Yale. He’s from Dunedin, a working class town where the median income was still under 50K in 2020. He got to Yale and he didn’t fit in with the more elite students who came from money. He wore that as a badge of honor. I’m sure it helped that he was both good looking and a jock (captain of the baseball team at Yale), but his ability to succeed without coming from money and without kowtowing to elite values is instructive. Confidence and a willingness not to be accepted by people whose values are unacceptable is noble.

    As for women sticking the landing, my definition of that was so far removed from Dalrock’s original premise (landing a UMC or rich husband), that I don’t really have a frame of reference for the well expressed layers of the post. I’m a prole and a black one at that, so makes sense. My husband recently talked about the abundant grace that is evident in how and why our marriage works. That is sticking the landing. Scott’s wife? Stuck the landing. I suppose Melinda Gates is the more traditional definition, or McKenzie Bezos, but I wouldn’t trade places with either of them.

    “I have the intelligence and tastes to be UMC, but frankly don’t care about the things they think are important. I have a fair number of overlapping interests that are traditionally working class, but my tastes, other interests, and language leave them uncomfortable around me. So, I’m often a fish out of water; more like a platypus.”

    This resonates with me. I’m surprised that even at this late stage of the cultural/political game (it’s the bottom of the 7th at least, maybe top of the 8th), Christians haven’t figure out that the elite class or the striving class is a dead end if you ever intend to show any open devotion to your faith or stand up to the current cultural hegemony. Best at this point not to care what they think. At all.

    Joshua Gibbs recently talked about how you never hear Christians utter the proverb, ‘Choose your battles carefully” except as an excuse not to fight, not to rock the boat, to protect their class status, if they have one, or to protect their necks if they don’t. It is past time to stop viewing what they do as a template.

    Even if they do influence us lower totem pole types in various ways, most people are never going to be elite; by definition. We need to be charting a course that is sane and grounded, and training our children to do likewise.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Liz says:

      We moved to this kinda obscure mountain town instead of another hifalutin one (which we’d looked at initially) because they people were less snobby (and the highschool had beater cars and trucks, instead of expensive luxury vehicles). It worked out really well, the people here are all very interesting and great neighbors.

      Candidly, I don’t really believe in this “cognitive elite” concept. There are douchy snobs, however.

      I’ve moved so many places and whenever the environment is different it’s an adjustment. The people seem off putting sometimes, or you feel like an outsider… which is the way it is, sometimes that feeling doesn’t go away, but usually it does. First day at Harvard and you don’t belong? Is this so much different from moving to a place in the sticks were everyone knows everyone and that’s the only place they’ve ever lived and they don’t care for outsiders? I think much of this is simply confirmation bias from being out of one’s element.

      IF anything, the douchy snobbery reveals their vulnerability because they’re not confident enough to be gracious (or too socially un-aware, or just lack empathy).

      Just my .01

      Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “I’ve moved so many places and whenever the environment is different it’s an adjustment. The people seem off putting sometimes, or you feel like an outsider…which is the way it is, sometimes that feeling doesn’t go away but usually it does. First day at Harvard and you don’t belong? Is this so much different from moving to a place in the sticks were everyone knows everyone and that’s the only place they’ve ever lived and they don’t care for outsiders? I think much of this is simply confirmation bias from being out of one’s element.”

        I agree with all of this Liz. As it relates to my DeSantis example, I think it’s notable that he went through Yale and then Harvard Law and came out with his soul intact, governing with deference to liberty and a belief that regular, non highly educated people are perfectly capable of making decisions for their lives without Big Daddy government micromanaging them. That’s a west coast Florida value that he held on to, to his credit, rather than assuming his Yale undergrad and Harvard law degree endowed him with wisdom from on high to dictate to his constituents.

        As to “cognitive elite” I wasn’t quite sure how to mentally categorize that either. For the purpose of defining terms, when I say the elite, I am referring to a very specific mindset. It is, at its foundation, the belief that one’s education and financial status a) makes you qualitatively better than other humans of lesser rank, and that as a result, b) said lesser people should defer to the greater wisdom of their betters and capitulate to their belief system as a path to greater “human flourishing” and autonomy.

        Hence, we get unrestrained sexual freedom, a dogged pursuit of personal happiness as the highest good, the casting off of anything resembling obligation to family, very little regard for the future of society as a whole, caring only for you and yours while giving lip service to higher ideals (virtue signaling). The sick part is that many of them preach and advertise it, but live much more conservatively (at least after they marry and settle down).

        Often, elitism has little to do with money. Increasing numbers of graduate level educated people have less money than we do. We rub elbows with people who are richer, more influential, and more highly educated than us, whom we like a great deal. Real, faithful, salt of the earth people. Their higher status than us doesn’t come with that superior attitude leftist elites virtually shed everywhere they walk.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        One may not believe in the cognitive elite as a concept, but our belief in the concept has nothing to do with their actual power. Neither does our dislike for how they wield that power socially, politically and culturally. Realities are what they are, and these are the people who are shaping them, unfortunately.

        The right messed up royally, really royally, when it decided that it didn’t need the elites, and that it could just hive itself off from them. That works for a while. It never works over the long term.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Novaseeker – I guess it depends on how you see elite. While the right allowed the left to shape entertainment and education, it still has it’s most prominent people coming out of a handful of elite educational cliques. We’ll see how the right abandoning areas of influence ultimately plays out, but the script is not fully written yet. The issue with the leftist elite is that they have gone all in on leftist ideology to play to the most vocal aspects of their base and the base demands rigid adherence to the ideology. Look for instances of the lefts social justice and woke branches going after their own. It’s becoming a more common occurrence. Because of this it’s becoming harder to sell the left as the political home for the “common man”, which is why in a long term view the right abandoning the “elites” may work out.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Fair enough, Novaseeker but I don’t see it that way.

        I think liberals had more foresight (unfortunately) when they took over media and education, and played the long game. Conservatives generally just want to be left alone and not tell everyone how to think and what to do, so they didn’t. People with affluence and influence are going to have more power to sway the direction in favor of whatever they want. Trump is a prole, but Bezos and that lizard who runs Facebook aren’t…. But as far as I know, they all come from working class backgrounds. Was Steve Jobs a prole? I don’t think so.

        At any rate, for my last assignment I was forced to entertain politicians, business people, and all the most influential folks who came to the base. I had my own protocol person and hosted 200 person dinners at my home. And I didn’t see this “cognitive elite” element.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I think liberals had more foresight (unfortunately) when they took over media and education, and played the long game. Conservatives generally just want to be left alone and not tell everyone how to think and what to do, so they didn’t.”

        That’s only part of it. The main contributor was the rift between country club Republicans who were going further left on social issues, and the Moral Majority/Tea Party wings who seized temporary control. The latter wings specifically ostracized the silk stocking William F. Buckley types.

        That, and the MM/Ralph Reed/Rick Santorum types had no idea what to do with the power they’d just taken. Santorum has done fine for himself and has moved up in the elite class – lawyering, conservative think tank, business venturing. He’s a money man now. But when’s the last time you heard about the Tea Party or the Moral Majority? Exactly.

        Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      “As for women sticking the landing, my definition of that was so far removed from Dalrock’s original premise (landing a UMC or rich husband), that I don’t really have a frame of reference for the well expressed layers of the post.”

      This is because you’re far outside the cultural mainstream of what it means to stick the landing. Most women can do what you did, sans the extremely attractive husband. Most women cannot marry anywhere close to as well as you did. The best most women can do is what Nova’s described – a nice enough guy with a job, a paycheck, his own place, and a little money in the bank, but who she’s not all that excited about.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Thats the other thing why does hacks like kate bolick deserve any man?What makes her so good?Shes a patty pan crying about men being peter pans?What a crybaby!She needs to put on her big girl panties!At least now she has made peace with being a spinster,her true calling obviously!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. thedeti says:

    It looks to me like a lot of people in this thread are trying to apply ADIEU and “sticking the landing” to men. It doesn’t really work that way, in my opinion. These are concepts that apply only to women.

    The only things that give men upward mobility are, well, the stuff in the middle: DIE. Discipline, intelligence, education. And we don’t “stick the landing”, because that concept presumes a rumspringa period where you do what you want how and when you want, after which time you will “get serious” and “straighten it out”, and everything works out for you perfectly in the end. You did all that stuff you’re not really too proud of, and it didn’t affect your life negatively, not really. That carousel riding, that abortion, that little STD and the numerous rounds of antibiotics – all just little blips on the road to being the next Mary Lou Retton.

    Men can’t do that. We can’t just gloss over our pasts. We have to deal with them each and every day. Decisions I made months and years ago still affect me today and I deal with the good and bad sequelae of them every day. Men either land on their feet with some bobbles that everyone saw; or they fall on their asses, and everyone sees that too. If you fell on your ass, that’s pretty much where you’ll stay.

    Women are allowed to get back up and try again or gloss over it. Men are not. Women scream and yell when they are faced with their pasts, because it means they didn’t stick the landing.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Oh yeah. And “sticking the landing” in womanese means “the past doesn’t matter and you can’t ever bring it up again, because that hurts my feelings. I, however, can remind men every day of their shortcomings and screwups.”

      This in my mind is a function of women being judged for who they are (which in their minds necessarily excludes who they were), and men being judged for what they do (which in everyone’s minds necessarily includes everything they have ever done).

      Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – It took me too many years to realize this. In my personal experience, there are times when past behaviors will not matter and even current iterations of past behaviors will not matter either as long as she feels she has changed enough. The typical rationalization I’ve come across is something similar to, “I’m not like that anymore. I do that much less than I used to so I feel like you’re not being fair to me and recognizing that I’ve changed.” Somehow the incremental behavioral shift is thought to be enough to clear the record.

        Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      The ““open to new beginnings” mentioned in the OP. Women eat that sh!t up – if she babbles about “new beginnings or posts “new beginnings” memes on social media – stay away from her.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Scott says:

      What I am saying is, in order for there to be a life script, there must be a cast of characters.

      There must be a carousel (men). There must be a man to land on, etc.

      The ideal life script as it is presented here makes me look back at the 40 plus years of messy, winding road my love life has been and clarifies some of what I saw. I can contextualize the failures, the things women have said to me, the kids of break ups (and the kinds of sub optimal relationship situations I have had).

      In some of those scripts, I was in fact, the carousel. How many exes of mine have gone on to try and stick the landing? How many accomplished it? I have no idea.

      Do their now husbands wonder if they are competing with me in her mind? Even if she never talks about me?

      In some of them, I was the quintessential nice guy they were trying to hop off the carousel onto. And when I turned out to be just another standard American guy, hopped back off to try and find something better.

      Looking at it from the perspective of a non-ADIEU woman, who have been told she can have the life script without all the necessary ingredients helps me understand the things that have happened to me, and things that have been said to me by them on that journey.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        It also helps me to assess what my own script was, and how effective (or not) it was.

        It went something like this:

        Meet a girl with whom there is unmistakable chemistry. Have sex within about 3-4 dates. Meet parents, move in, take a vacation together. Get married, live happily ever after. All previous relationships (hers and mine) are just mistakes leading up to the big live action romantic comedy.

        In order to realize that script, I felt I needed to have another script, like a computer program running in the background of my personality:

        Be nice. Don’t drink too much. Don’t be violent. Be confident, but not an a$$hole. Have goals, but be flexible. Be headed somewhere in life. Add in whatever innate “alpha” qualities I already have. Height, looks, charm, whatever.

        At that point, I can see that what happened in each relationship was a function of interacting variables. How did any particular woman assess my (visceral level) attractiveness? Where was she in her own life script? Etc.

        In my late 20s, I went out with a string of other late 20s/early 30s woman. I was a junior enlisted soldier who had not yet even been accepted in graduate school. There was a lot of fun to be had in those relationships but never once did the topic of marriage come up. I may have been sexy enough (to them) but I had no real prospects to make big money. They were in the epiphany phase, trying to squeeze out their last year or two of fun until jumping off. I was operating in a totally different mindset and had no idea a break up was coming.

        In other phases of my life, it was different still. You get the idea.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “At that point, I can see that what happened in each relationship was a function of interacting variables. How did any particular woman assess my (visceral level) attractiveness? Where was she in her own life script? Etc.”

        Exactly. It works best, as you know from your own experience as well, when the variables interact in a way that points to the same place, i.e., visceral is in place, lifer script pointing towards permanence, and you fir the bill (and of course, provided you are also pointing in this way). It’s when things are out of kilter, on one variable, for either person, that things get screwed up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “…and things that have been said to me by them on that journey.”

        And this is the one that has perplexed me for years. I have heard it a number of times. If it had just been once, I could write it off as just an outlier.

        Me, months or even years into an LTR: “Why did you get physical with me so fast?”
        Her: “Because I didn’t think you were going be around long.”

        I still have trouble processing this through my filter.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “Her: Because I didn’t think you were going be around long.”

        Scott, that could be interpreted two ways I think. The first is she has a slutty mentality – my first reaction and I suspect yours too.

        The other way it can be interpreted: “I didn’t think you were going to be around long and I wanted to keep you around.” Remember what Nova says about women and unspoken communication.

        Women use sex to get and to keep men. Yes, I’m sure sex with alphas is fun for them but they also use it to keep alphas.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        “Women use sex to get and to keep men. Yes, I’m sure sex with alphas is fun for them but they also use it to keep alphas.”

        In one of the interviews I did with Rich Cooper, this came up. We discussed the larger issue at hand which is, in the current frame of things, it is important for women to make men (including any particular man, in any situation) to see himself as less valuable than he really is. The entire system is designed to make men question their value, therefore artificially creating an entire class of men who are probably pretty good catches but second guess themselves all the time.

        It has never occurred to me to see myself as the kind of guy a woman would try to nab with sex. I look in the mirror and see “standard, issue, average American Jo Blo” and I have only, in the last few years, begun to notice that this is by design.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        “…and things that have been said to me by them on that journey.”

        It perplexes us men because we tend to look logically at it; and women tend to look emotionally at it.

        *Me, months or even years into an LTR: “Why did you get physical with me so fast?”

        Her: “Because I didn’t think you were going be around long.”*

        Translation: “Because I was afraid I’d lose my chance to lock you down. Because I was sexually attracted to you and I wanted to keep you. Because I felt like having sex with a sexy man. Because at the time I felt like having sex, and hoped it would work out. Because it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

        Whenever women explain why they say and do what they say and do, it always boils down to:

        “Because it felt like the right thing for me to say/do at the time. Because I believed it would serve my interests at the time.”

        I sometimes asked girls the same thing: “Why did you get physical so fast?”

        Her: “You just seemed like a really nice guy.” or “You were nice to me.” or “You were easy to talk to.”

        Translation: “I got sexually attracted to you and wanted to have sex with you, and you said and did things that helped me feel comfortable enough to have sex with you soon. I got the sense that you would ‘respect me in the morning’. I got the sense that you wouldn’t call me a slut, pump and dump me, or tell all your friends I’m easy.”

        Or the ever popular: “Why am I just now hearing about how you liked me then??”

        Her: “You never made any moves.” or “You made some moves, then you stopped, so I figured you weren’t interested in me.” or “You never talked to me.” or “You didn’t seem interested.” or “I thought you were gay.”

        Translation: “I liked you a lot. Couldn’t you see that? Couldn’t you see how I looked at you for more than 2 seconds, and smiled? Didn’t you notice me watching you as you walked past me in the high school hallway? Didn’t you notice me trying to make conversation with you beyond “hi”? You should have taken my hints and run with them. You needed to try harder. You needed to try again. If you had tried a little bit, I would have given you everything you needed to keep going. All you needed to do was show a little interest and we would have been off to the races.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott – Any possibility that the Dunning-Kruger Effect can apply to how people think the opposite sex views them? If people who are on the upper end of intellectual capacity can mistakenly underestimate where they are on the normal curve, could the same be true for perceived attractiveness?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        RPA-

        In my own professional life, the D-K effect has manifested itself in what we in the graduate school-credentialist crowd call “the imposter syndrome.”

        I have a recurring dream. In that dream, It is discovered by “them” that somewhere back in my educational background, I missed a step. A class I was supposed to take in HS. A paper I forgot to turn in for some stupid college class, and therefore received an incomplete. A competency exam I failed in graduate school, and the system didn’t record it right.

        Then, all my degrees and credentials are stripped from me, and it is discovered that I am in fact, a total fake. I must resign myself to a life of flipping burgers, because of one blip on the screen.

        I awaken from this dream in a panic. “Am I totally full of $hit? Am I a fraud? What papers did I forget to read, what journal article did I not understand? There is so much I DON’T know about my field and the scholarly contributions NEVER stop being produced! I am a blow hard! I am incompetent compared to some of my colleagues!”

        Applying that to relationships (in the way you hypothesize) would be worth an article all by itself.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott – You sentiment about feeling like people in your field knowing more than you is normal. It’s most likely due to the intricacy of the world and their focus being slightly different than yours. My finance professor in graduate school had been researching his area of the field for 45 years at the time and summed up his expertise this way (paraphrasing), “The more research I do, the narrower my area of knowledge becomes and the larger the field of finance becomes.” The sentiment stuck with me. It helped shape my views of the world’s complexity and I know there are always new things to learn if I stay humbly curious. It also ties in nicely with Milton Freidman’s lecture on how no one on earth knows enough to build the simple #2 pencil.

        If only there was someone here with the right background to examine my hypothesis further? I’ll be interested to read what your article says regarding the application of the imposter syndrome to relationships. See what I did there? 🙂

        Like

  9. Novaseeker says:

    “I think liberals had more foresight (unfortunately) when they took over media and education, and played the long game. Conservatives generally just want to be left alone and not tell everyone how to think and what to do, so they didn’t.”

    Ah. This will be a long comment in response to the issue you’re raising. It isn’t intended as a personal response to you — please don’t take it that way. It’s good that you raised this issue, because it’s the elephant on the table in these discussions it seems to me.

    The key is this: It wasn’t always like that.

    Conservatives historically had not associated their worldview with that kind of “hands off” approach. That is what conservatism became, yes, when it left the commanding heights to others — it basically abandoned the field. Prior to 1950, the “establishment” that controlled things like the media and the universities was very much what we would today call “conservative”, and it very much believed it had the right, and the obligation, to tell people what they ought to think and how they ought to behave. In fact, the essence of conservative belief, historically, has been that there is a right way to behave and think and it’s generally the established, historical, inherited way — and this way should very much be promoted. And it was promoted — very much so — from the “top” down, by people in various institutions, including the media and the universities.

    This only changed as a result of conservatives on the elite level losing confidence in their own views — elites abandoned conservative views as they largely abandoned Christianity. And instead of fighting on that level, and challenging what was happening there among that portion of the elite class that is always involved in setting the agenda, morally/intellectually/culturally, conservatives instead retreated from that part of the elite class, which started a process of a retreat from the elite class overall, which is now more or less in its “completed” stage.

    This led to the truly bizarre situation today where people genuinely associate being a conservative with “not telling other people how they should live”, when historically this was never the case. That’s the philosophy that predominates in an environment where it is in retreat and wants to carve out a place where it can survive — it isn’t a confident philosophy, because a confident philosophy will always seek its own promotion, for how can it do otherwise — its own promotion is, after all, for the benefit of everyone, and not just people who “believe in it”. The left still believes that about its own philosophy (i.e., that it’s the best for everyone, and therefore it should be promoted for everyone) but the right stopped believing that about itself quite some time ago, and has retreated instead into “minding one’s own business” and religion (which is viewed as a private matter).

    Historically the establishment was religious, but that wasn’t the sole area in which the idea of “what is the right way to live” was promoted. The programming that the left is doing in the schools now was also done 70 years ago in the schools, but it was done from a traditional/conservative perspective, socially, as was the media reporting that shaped views. It mostly “rhymed” with what the churches were teaching, but it wasn’t viewed as being relegated to churches because how people should live their lives in a general sense is not a matter of religion per se but of social cohesion and must be socially reinforced, and the right never thought otherwise until it felt forced to retreat into this cramped, quasi-libertarian philosophy due to the abandonment of the elites.

    “People with affluence and influence are going to have more power to sway the direction in favor of whatever they want. Trump is a prole, but Bezos and that lizard who runs Facebook aren’t…. But as far as I know, they all come from working class backgrounds. Was Steve Jobs a prole? I don’t think so.”

    Yes, of course they have more influence. The question is this: Why did their views uniformly change? The people with that kind of influence didn’t always think this way, they used to think more conservatively, until they didn’t. And that view wasn’t premised on the idea that conservative ideas mean wanting to be left alone and letting people decide what is best themselves — it most certainly wasn’t that. There was a switch from a kind of conservative/establishment paternalism which was socially “taught” by education and media towards a progressive/radical paternalism, which is being socially “taught” in the same ways. That shift was the key, and it resulted from conservatism “losing” the mindshare of the people with the power to sway things, as you say. And when that happened, conservatism retreated and allied itself with an approach that sought to sidestep the cultural influencers in the elite altogether, but that doesn’t work. At the end of the day, someone holds the cultural power, and that someone believes what you do, or they don’t. It’s fine to argue that you want to be left alone when the people with that power don’t think as you do, but that’s a defensive stance. Conservative ideas, traditional ideas, will never “prevail” socially from the “ground up” — culture doesn’t work that way. It comes from the top down. So at some stage, somehow, the right needs to grow mindshare at the top. And that doesn’t come from a minimalist “leave me alone” approach (however appropriate that may be when you are out of cultural power at the top, as is the case with today’s cultural conservatives), but from a more confident, broad expression of traditional culture and values as the best life approach for everyone, quite apart from religion.

    “At any rate, for my last assignment I was forced to entertain politicians, business people, and all the most influential folks who came to the base. I had my own protocol person and hosted 200 person dinners at my home. And I didn’t see this “cognitive elite” element.”

    Right. You likely wouldn’t in that context. The people who are shaping the culture today are the people working at the New York Times, CNN, teaching at Harvard and Yale, making the movies and TV shows that influence people, women writing books that influence each other and the like. These people. I’d think that very few of them have much direct interface with the military like that situation. They don’t inhabit that world. But they generate the ideas that create the culture that the rest of us are living in and, thanks to the way the culture works today with the internet and social media and the like, is both spread faster than ever and enforced more rigidly than ever. It impacts the military leadership, clearly, but in an indirect way. And “conservatism” has almost no representation in this group. Zilch.

    It isn’t Bezos and Zuck themselves — they are the ownership class at this point. It’s the people who are in that group I described who own the culture-making process. They are the cognitive elites. People like Bezos and Zuck promote them, to be sure, but they aren’t generating the culture — they are the promoters, but the culture-generators are the cultural/cognitive elite class. Owning their mindshare matters the most because they make the entire culture — they are the setters of the culture.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “There was a switch from a kind of conservative/establishment paternalism which was socially “taught” by education and media towards a progressive/radical MATERNALISM, which is being socially “taught” in the same ways.”

      Fixed that for ya – you’re welcome Nova 😊

      Otherwise great comment as always.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      “The people who are shaping the culture today are the people working at the New York Times, CNN, teaching at Harvard and Yale, making the movies and TV shows that influence people, women writing books that influence each other and the like.”

      The mass media IS leftism. Mass media (maybe) loosely defined to include the Universities (or maybe they take their cues from the media).

      https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/09/does-mass-media-have-leftist-bias-no-it.html

      Liz, as a long time (low level) employee in D-FENCE, I’ve been around retired high-ranking military for 20+ years. IMO they’re “striver” class (insofar as I understand that phrase). Most of them have actually been pretty kind to white trash like me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        The aviation community is very diverse. Lots of working class backgrounds, and lots of folks who were born into wealth. The first guy who got married out of Mike’s pilot training class had the wedding at his parent’s mansion in Martha’s Vineyard. I had never even heard of Martha’s Vineyard at that time.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Elspeth says:

      You sound almost like Michael Knowles. That’s a huge compliment, by the way.

      I usually get the impression that you tacitly approve of much elitist behavior. This clarifies your position in my mind. Thank you for this long explanation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        His writing comes off as very forensic/dispassionate (that’s a compliment too!) so I can see how that could seem like approval for those of us who are more hot headed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        “I usually get the impression that you tacitly approve of much elitist behavior. This clarifies your position in my mind. Thank you for this long explanation.”

        The problem is, it’s impossible to see the long game. Nova has elsewhere posited that “flexibility” is a key component to “successes” like “sticking the landing.” It is comments like that that make you feel like he is approving. Its commentary, nothing else.

        I believe, with no special clairvoyant claims or capacity whatsoever, that thousands of years from now, the writings in places like Dalrock and here will be canonized. Some of the most original, thought provoking, morally and ethically challenging writing is found in these obscure places.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @Scott:

        I get it. It’s analysis, but I’ve been processing it as commentary. With the addition of commentary (e.g., “The right blew it royally by giving up the culture without a fight”), I got something of a glimpse of a position rather than an analysis of what is.

        Being solutions minded makes me automatically ask, “Okay. But most people are not elite, so what’s the relevance to a population that by and large, simply do not have each of the ADIEU in tandem? How are believers, who should be primarily concerned with virtue (or at least AS concerned with virtue as these other things), to move forward in a world hostile to true virtue?”

        The answer Nova alluded to is “Fight for the culture”. Hence, my comparison of his commentary to Michael Knowles, who frequently notes that “squishy conservatives” gave up the culture in return for tax breaks and economic growth, fully ignoring that this was not a strategy that would yield long term results.

        Liz is 100% right about the left playing the long game. My concern is two fold. First, sane people who live in reality and believe in objective truth need to formulate our own long game. Secondly, understand that capitulation to the so-called elite is what got us into this mess. Play to win, accept that there will be casualties, or go home.

        Teaching our young women how they can land successfully after jumping of the carousel is not a strategy.

        Not that Nova was promoting this strategy. I’m not implying that at all.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        You don’t “capitulate” to the elites, you become them. You colonize them, take their mindshare, bring them to your ideas and then you become them. And then you spread your values throughout the culture.

        Christianity did this, to great effect, and created the Christian culture that prevailed in the West for many centuries. That happened because Christianity captured the mindshare of the elites. It “flipped” them to Christianity. It didn’t capitulate to pagan elites, no, but it also didn’t say to itself “oh, let’s just ignore elites altogether and not get our hands dirty with that, because they’re all pagan anyway, so let’s just focus on our faith and our families and see what comes”. There were certainly some Christians who did exactly that, but there were others who took on the elite ideas directly, discoursing with them actively, formulating their ideas in the tropes and modes and ways of convincing of the day, precisely because the importance of capturing that mindshare was a given.

        What Christianity needs to do is to set its sights on a re-conquest: we need to reconquer the elite class. Not capitulate to it, but reconquer it, repopulate it with our ideas, with ourselves (or successors to ourselves) who will be elite and Christian (it can be done, and was done, for many centuries). By thinking we can ignore the elites altogether and simply distance ourselves from them, we are simply digging a bigger hole for ourselves, because the less mindshare we have among elites, the more alienated from Christianity the culture will become, because elites control culture-production and dissemination, and of course they place their thumb on the scale in doing so in various ways (as was always done .. Christian elites did the same thing in the past, for excellent reasons).

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Novaseeker
        Since such things are inherently Christian. Then the only way is to seek the conversion of the Elite or if God foreknows that they scarcely or never repent despite the effort of the masses then we will have to follow God’s guidance.

        Perhaps God will raise up Elites like David whom he will appoint as the leadership of the Right-Wing. Otherwise the masses are on their own aside from God that is.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Again, there is a template for this. Christianity did this in the period from ca. 100 to ca 300. It colonized the elite mindshare, gradually. It prayed for conversion, too, yes, but it also actively colonized the elite class. How? By doing the work. By articulating Christianity in ways that “made sense” to the way that the elites thought, to the systems of ideas and idea currents that were ambient in that age, by framing Christianity in a way that was attractive and ultimately convincing. At first to some of the elites, and then it spreads from elite to elite. It’s pray and work — ora et labora, as the saying goes.

        Christians are largely failing at this today. It’s not a question of “making better arguments” or “using social media for Christ” or klieg lights and rock worship and so on. It’s a question of addressing the concerns that are motivating people today, especially people in that critical group, in a way that is both Christian and expressed in ways that make current sense to the way of thinking that permeates the elites today.

        Christians today tend to think “that’s impossible”, but it isn’t. It does require a lot of work and creativity and it also requires a generation of Christian thinkers who are steeped in the current ways of thinking in terms of understanding them backwards and forwards but are still committed Christians — we had that when we flipped the pagan elites, our thinkers were every bit as sharp on the same philosophical precedents and mindsets that were prevalent in the age as their pagan interlocutors were, which was critical in making their points in a way that “made current sense” to the elites of that day, in terms of the way of thinking that permeated them.

        The way of thinking is different today, so the same arguments can’t be copy-pasted into today’s world, but the overall approach of mastering the current worldview and way of thinking and then articulating why Christianity answers the core questions that this worldview seeks to answer and addresses the shortcomings and contradictions of this worldview — that powerful synthesis is yet to be made, and I think the reasons are (1) most Christians don’t think it needs to be made (which is a critical error and fundamentally misunderstands how Christianity prevailed in the past) and (2) those Christians who do think it needs to be made insist on re-articulating prior paradigms (like neo-Thomism or Natural Law or what have you) which do not speak to the current way of thinking and therefore are easily dismissed and which, therefore, ultimately fail to have the desired effect and actually make things worse by increasing the general view that Christianity is out of touch.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “You don’t “capitulate” to the elites, you become them. You colonize them, take their mindshare, bring them to your ideas and then you become them. And then you spread your values throughout the culture.”

        Or you eat their livers with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

        Like

    • Joe2 says:

      “The left still believes that about its own philosophy (i.e., that it’s the best for everyone, and therefore it should be promoted for everyone).”

      Sorry, I disagree. The left doesn’t necessarily believe their philosophy as it is being experienced today is the best for everyone. It’s all about power and control which will benefit the left. The intended result is to cement their position in government. If people suffer as a result, so what – a good portion of the country are considered deplorables.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Bingo Joe2! The goal of the left is always power. Lenin had his useful idiots not to build consensus or preserve freedom, but to consolidate power. Over the past 80 years, the left in big cities give lip service to helping people, but then promote policies that don’t really help people but are really good at increasing power. It’s one of the best grifts in history.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think you make a fundamental mistake in seeing them as anything other than idealists. They are extreme idealists. Yes, they seek power, but they do genuinely believe that it is for the best for everyone — it’s from a perspective of idealism.

        When we fail to understand this, we fundamentally misunderstand the hold that the ideas have on them, which is what conservatives almost always do. It’s unthinkable to conservatives that people could really, sincerely, and intensely believe in ideals like the left does, so we prefer to assume that they are simply all cynical people. And here we err greatly, misunderstand the adversary and fail in a way that amplifies their power yet again because we are not adequately countering it due to our refusal to properly understand it.

        Well done.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. redpillboomer says:

    “Teaching our young women how they can land successfully after jumping of the carousel is not a strategy.”

    I’ve noticed on many Youtube videos, both Manospherian and otherwise (female videos being reviewed by Manosphere men), that this strategy seems to be breaking down. In the four years I’ve been RP, I’ve never seen so many female videos (again being reviewed by Manospherian men) talking about/complaining about MGTOW. It’s like the women are being thwarted in the dating/mating strategy that worked for most of this century so far, e.g. follow the feminist life script/ride the carousel until their late twenties/early thirties, and then jump to land Mr. Beta Bucks after Chad is finished with them (and won’t commit because he has moved on to younger Stacy’s). It’s like suddenly they are, “OMG MGTOW!!! What the hell is this MOVEMENT??? Why are the men ‘going their own way?’ WTF is going on here?” Novaseeker, care to elaborate? You and Jack can probably unpack this trend for us better than I can, if it is indeed a trend. It seems to be from the proliferation of videos with women complaining about MGTOW men I’ve seen in the last six months.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s true that there has been more chatter about that.

      I think it isn’t because women care that much about the specific men who opt for MGTOW as much as it’s about the impact that those guys have on the entire market.

      The dating market is like a pond. The behavior of all of the participants leaves ripples that impact the whole pond. And that’s also the case for people who choose to withdraw from the pond entirely. What that does is increase the power, in relative terms, of the remaining men who are still participating in the pond. This is because of the overall ratio shift. Even relatively small changes in the “effective sex ratio” (the ratio of men to women who are participating the mating market) have a lot of market impact. When the effective sex ratio goes down (fewer men relative to women), the power of the men increases vis-a-vis women, and men get their way more in the market, all else held equal. So fewer men participating in the market will lower the sex ratio, and increase the market power of the men who remain, which negatively impacts the women participants, in terms of the power they have to “get their way” in the market, even if the specific men who are leaving are not men that these women would ever consider dating.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastmod says:

        Love how men who are married “explaining” MGTOW and, you know, how they had an active dating life before they were married…..

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Novaseeker – I like your thought process here. You are describing a shift in the supply demand curve. If we think of men like women in modern times do, a product they can selected off the shelf whenever they choose, a small shift in supply can cause a panic.

        If we think about this logically, all MGTOWs are not created equal in the female emotional response. Let’s assume that the top 20% of men, those with options in today’s world, that the vast majority of women believe they are worthy of, eventually do marry. That leaves 80% of the women looking for female life script plan B, which used to be the beta bucks side of the equation. As more BB men’s eyes are open to the fact that they are being used by The Chad’s cast offs as plan B go MGTOW, this would have a disproportionate emotional response (ie fear) from women trying to stick the landing.

        In the present, we are experiencing the fear that comes from supply shortage now in my beloved South. They cyber attack on Colonial Pipeline and subsequent pipeline shutdown has limited the fuel supply in our area. The issue could be fixed by the end of the week, but for now, the uncertainty is driving (pun definitely intended) people to fill up over fear that fuel won’t be available when needed. I believe MGTOW in the beta bucks arena is the shortage fear that is driving the emotional response in women.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Lastmod – As a married man of nearly 20 years I have 2 lines of thought. The first one is that I know God is sovereign, and that means the misery of marriage is part of His plan for me. Because the pain has been marriage related, I have thought over the years of how this is what God goes through with us as his church. It is a humbling experience to realize that I am simultaneously the one who is being sinned against and the one who is sinning.

        The second line of thought is one of me hypothetically denying God’s sovereignty. In this case, if I were able to go back and change things, I would never get married to my wife. And through the lens of experience (worst teacher by the way, puts the test before the lesson), I don’t know that I can remember any woman untainted enough by modern culture to be suitable wife material.

        So take heed of the married men who comment on this blog. Many have wisdom earned at a great cost to themselves and know better than most that MGTOW is viable as a less painful option.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “What that does is increase the power, in relative terms, of the remaining men who are still participating in the pond.”

        Sweet! If men keep leaving, I can get that younger 2nd wife. Only stipulation is my wife says she has to be her slave, like Sarah-Hagar.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      The interesting aspect of the impact of MGTOW on women, is that this shift is largely psychological. I mean, women have no interest in those men who go MGTOW anyway, so it’s not like MGTOW is changing the actual dynamics of which men, or what kinds of men, women are attracted to.

      While it is true that, compared to decades ago, there are relatively fewer men now who fit the bill of being able to draw a woman’s attention and create attraction, this is due to larger societal forces of feminism, not MGTOW itself. MGTOW is a reaction to this situation.

      MGTOW is like a psy-op because it stokes the fear of uncertainty about the SMP stability. This is because, on the whole, women see “men” as an impersonal, monolithic entity within society, much like we might think of “government” as a faceless monolithic entity. Psychologically, this monolithic entity is completely separate from individual men who might draw the attention of a particular woman. MGTOW is perceived as a fracture in the monolith, which shakes the image of “men” being a stalwart, unchanging entity to which parasites can attach themselves without any psychological concern for security.

      Ultimately, MGTOW empowers men, and this is a wake-up call to women, saying in effect, that women are not the only decision makers in the equation. It then becomes an existential crisis for women (much like it is for those men who go MGTOW), hence, all the outrage we see from women about MGTOW.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastmod says:

        “Ultimately, MGTOW empowers men, and this is a wake-up call to women, saying in effect, that women are not the only decision makers in the equation.”

        I guess partly true. Empowering men to take options, sure. As a support network of sorts? Okay… I’ll buy that. A wake-up call to women????

        Nope.

        Women could care less about the men going MGTOW… Now if they all looked you guys here, or were Ryan Gosling, Jude Law types……. sure, there would be a panic and change come morning…

        But for the men who are MGTOW, or forced into MGTOW… Not one woman is losing sleep.

        “Oh, lastmod has such potential, even at his age… Too bad he hangs with MGTOW’s.” said no woman ever about me, or 95% of men in MGTOW or connected to it loosely or otherwise.

        How do women know about MGTOW? Through their friends or something they read online. It’s easy to attack, because well…… look at the men who are indeed MGTOW.

        If Sandman looked like Ryan Gosling…. there would be a panic, or he would be smeared as gay. If Peter Lloyd (cool Brit, met him while I was in the UK) opened up a MGTOW page, he would called out and smeared as gay. “Oh such a loss!”

        If Scott or others here at his level went MGTOW, there would be weeping of thousands of women.

        No tears lost on MGTOW. It’s just easy to attack.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Anecdotally, I’ve seen it suggested that women react even more negatively to MGTOWs than to PUAs.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. feeriker says:

    “No landing to stick for Paris, being a wealthy heiress, but still single at 39.”

    Being an all-around slore makes a woman too big of a marriage risk no matter how wealthy she is. Add other train-wreck factors to the toxic stew (substance addiction issues in Paris’s case), and only a man who is either addicted to drama as much as any woman, or a man with zero self-respect who would want her.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. lastmod says:

    I re-read Dalrock’s posting……..

    In true Dalrock fashion, he takes extreme examples of published writers, think-tanks, and the like…. muscles it up and makes a story.

    Marriage is for elites now. Agreed. Has been for awhile. Why or how did this happen, and this way? I don’t have time nor the drive, nor the “IQ” to explain it, or even try to.

    I read “Men On Strike” when it came out seven / eight years ago. The writer appeared on that silly morning Fox show, “Fox and Friends”, and was attacked by the men on the panel. “Young men need to just take responsibility… That is how you get a wife! Easy!” The women on that panel…. aside from them looking like they were going to a nightclub as soon as the cameras went off at 9AM, parroted the same thing. “Men just need to have confidence, go to college, get a useful degree, and be there for women!”

    The writer calmly said, “This is is easy for you all on this panel to say because you are all elite men and women here.”

    Silence…. nervous laughter, polite trying to get a point in, the writer continued…

    “You all have college degrees. You all are well traveled, you came from places where there was decent support of both parents or a single parent that was a solid provider of stability. You all had many options when you were starting your careers… Not that it was easy…. But in these matters, you all had a massive advantage that is now gone from a very large swath of the American male population today.”

    She was polite, articulate, and she tried to explain other areas in which this “Fox and Friends” wasn’t getting it, or even if they were…….. they refused to believe any of it. “Young men just need to vote republican, move out of the house, get a good job…….. Great women are everywhere.”

    Of course they had run out of time… and “Fox and Friends” had the last dig about how “young men today are not willing to put in the hard work in school, in their job, at church, and with women.”

    Marriage is an elite thing now, and every man in here who is married is an elite (and the Elect as well I am sure). Rules have to be followed by everyone else…. but not them. Standards have to be upheld… but you know… not for them. Second chances are granted for them…… But we’ll throw the book at any man that dareth complain for not being a “real man”.

    The price and cost of divorce hits a working class guy MUCH harder dollar for dollar. The cost of losing the kids is higher for a man who put his all into that compared to an elite that can “just go out and meet someone else”. The risks are much higher for an average guy…..

    Why?

    Because in the end, America doesn’t fight for the average guy (or gal even). The price one pays for an average fear-free life overall trades off in other areas. Being working class / lower middle class means there will be just about no one to champion your causes, Few will help you in guiding you to your desires or dreams. No one above you would NEVER want to trade places with you, and we live in a world now that if you are indeed average………………….. you are a loser.

    We live in a time when everyone is an “amazing leader” (as if), no one makes mistakes… and bad choices are always “someone eles’s fault” (in this side of the Internet, Feminism is blamed for every minute problem in the world….. “The train isn’t on time……? Well, it’s feminism, you see.”)

    Indeed when most men are now ‘below average’ in anything and everything……. deemed by you men here, women in general and society at large.

    What do you expect?

    Men on strike was a bad title… Mostly it was, “Men who had to make this choice because, well, the other one wasn’t there.”

    [Note to readers from Jack: Please include a link whenever making a reference to another post, article, or video. Thanx~!]

    Liked by 2 people

  13. lastmod says:

    I’ll say it AGAIN:

    Women attack MGTOW because its easy. “These toxic men are influencing other men! Stop it! Bitter! Losers! Ugly!”

    MGTOW has no effect on dating. None. Most MGTOW’s are either divorced older guys who are done (over 35), never had any options to begin with, or that former player type who hangs out for a bit…….. meets ‘the gal of his dreams”, gets married, and then calls MGTOW’s a bunch of older, bitter dudes.

    MGTOW is like a scuffy street rat / bum going into a Mercedes Benz dealership (or any other higher end new car dealership), complaining loudly to the sales-staff on how “over priced” and “pretentious” this or that car / SUV / truck is, without realizing that they could not afford that vehicle, couldn’t even get a “test drive” and ends up looking silly in front of the sales staff. He leaves, and life goes on.

    MGTOW, unlike NOW or any other “female” organization, doesn’t have a spokesperson. Doesn’t have a platform, or doctrine, or RULES of “who is in charge.”

    All it does is give hopium copium under a wide umbrella. I am a MGTOW, but after a few months of reading the materials… you can take what you need to get on, and actually “go your own way”. You can use it as a community of sorts, or it can be that place where you are “going your own way”, and all you do is piss, whine, and moan about women all day.

    It has some good advice. Women hate anything they are not allowed to be a part of. That is why they are attacking it.

    If REAL high value men were indeed “going MGTOW”, then there would a serious cause for alarm….. Those men ALWAYS get sex / dates / affirmation and attention from women….. Yeah, I am sure they will give that up.

    They are? Yeah, I also have some sure bet dot.com stocks to advise you on too.

    Like

  14. lastmod says:

    “[Note to readers from Jack: Please include a link whenever making a reference to another post, article, or video. Thanx~!]”

    Note to Jack. Fox being “red pilled” and “standing for something” removed it a long time ago (because they were totally wrong). But this clip here does have a few snippets from that interview. Most of these must have been between 2013-2014.

    But we all know Rollo and Rich Cooper have done more for men than anyone that ever lived. Rich Cooper btw charges per minute for personal one-to-one coaching advice for to men. I got this book at the public library and bought my own copy at a yard sale for a buck.


    [Jack: Thanx~! The WayBack Machine is sometimes helpful.]

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Heard on a Youtube the other day that Rich Cooper charges $33/minute. Not sure if that’s true, but it was a interesting insight. If true on Cooper, that would be $1980/hour to be told to “maintain frame, go to the gym, and stay away from single mom’s.” I’ve seen other reports coming out from the feud a couple of years back between 21 Studios Anthony Johnson and Rollo Tomassi. Not to go into any of what happened (who really cares?), but lately, I’ve seen an increasing number of clips on Manosphere grifting and a good deal of it seems to emerge from that feud; in other words, content creators that used to be in bed together are now calling one another out. It’s quite eye opening if these men are really pulling the kind of grift off that the anti-grift commentators are describing. Novaseeker, any insight to this Manospherian ‘food fight?’ Btw, it’s great to come to a sight like this, and Dalrock before it, and get not only good content, but excellent commentary by the commenters. In my opinion, what’s said on here is much deeper than what most of the secular content creators are putting out. I guess it’s because they are limited to ‘secular reasoning’ and don’t have the spiritual insight offered by you and Jack and most all the commentators on here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        There is a ton of grifting going on, no question. It’s one of the reasons I remain somewhat skeptical of Roosh, because he has a history of it (although I do allow that it’s quite possible that his conversion is sincere, I just need to see more). The whole Anthony Johnson thing is a black box. I respect Rollo a lot more than I do that guy (who has big red flags all around him), but I do get the sense that Rollo got himself tied up with some of those guys because he thought it would help expand his own brand reach, and that ended up backfiring.

        My own view is that one should be very skeptical of people who do this kind of writing for their livelihood, because that creates all kinds of incentives that are often problematic.

        The same goes, by the way, for other related areas like, say, religion writing. Be very skeptical of people who are not clergy (real clergy, not made up clergy) who are writing spiritual or religious books/videos/speaking/etc and relying on that as their source of life income — it creates all kinds of problematic incentives that can’t help but impact the content that is served up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @nova, Well yes, the incentive to find novel insights, come up with novel content, etc.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I don’t charge nearly that much.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I’ll work for beer. But good beer, because standards.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        On a video with Rollo and a few other blow hards……Cooper brags about how much money “chumps” pay him per minute to get one-on-one advice.

        On another video, Face and LMS came on as a guest, outnumbered…Face actually stood his ground while all these “real men” were reduced to name calling, shaming and other attacks to try and silence him

        Like

  15. lastmod says:

    “So take heed of the married men who comment on this blog. Many have wisdom earned at great cost to themselves and know better than most that MGTOW is viable as a less painful option.”

    Whale excrement!

    The grass is always “greener” on the other side. I am guilty of that myself.

    Many MGTOW’s are divorced. Factory, mine, lumber mill closed………. unemployed…… wife suddenly decides she’s “not happy”… divorces, forces a man with little or no options (cough… non-elite) back to his teenage bedroom with his parent(s), because child support / alimony / court fees take everything. Wife meets another man (or men) moves in with him……… NEVER marries because that would take away that safety net of alimony and other benefits.

    Lots of MGTOWs like this. Lots of other like me who just never made the cut. Lot of former Game / PUA types coming in… selling “Frame” now… tons of incels (a full scale civil war is brewing again in MGTOW between these two camps). MGTOW cannot be controlled Paul Elam tried……. Big MGTOW John tried. Other think they speak for it, but MGTOW always self-corrects.

    As for married men having wisdom because of marriage. I have wisdom because I am not.

    Married men commenting on MGTOW is about as logical as men talking about what sex feels like when I never had it.

    Like

    • Sharkly says:

      “Married men commenting on MGTOW is about as logical as men talking about what sex feels like when I never had it.”

      I don’t see them describing the MGTOW experience, like in your analogy. I see the commenters here describing what effect they think the MGTOW phenomenon is having on the dating market and the female psyche. Below is my assessment:

      There is currently a reduction in the supply of marriage minded men. MGTOW drops a lot of men out of the serious marriage market even if they are mainly below average, while many players in the upper ranks are refusing to ever marry and settle down as well. And many younger attractive divorced men having gotten burned or red-pilled are not plunging back into the marriage market again, whereas those same type of men previously used to rebound fast and wind up with 2-4 marriages in a lifetime. The lowering of the supply of marriage minded men is a phenomenon across the board. The institution of marriage itself is becoming know to men to be fraught with peril and diminished incentive. Also the stigma against “shacking up” has lessened and many men, especially former children of divorce, view it as a safer alternative to a “Marriage 2.0” and the ensuing sexless servitude. So it shouldn’t surprise us if women are sensing the pinch. When you combine that with the natural decrease in a woman’s marriage appeal and options as she ages, which she is loath to mentally accept, it is less humiliating for her to fret that the whole marriage market is drying up, as opposed to admitting that she was playing the fool and playing the field when she should have been LASER focused on latching onto a good husband.

      Very few husbands will divorce a decent wife, we’ve mostly got far lower expectations than women going into marriage today. Regular sex, some reasonable domestic work, and civil treatment is all most men expect, and yet most men are still being disappointed by their wives.

      Romans 1:25 “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [(Woman)] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

      Due to the original sin of giving woman the worth-ship to be served rather than God, which is also currently mandated by today’s Christo-Feminism, there is going to be less heterosexual marriage in our society’s future, because of divine recompense for our world’s faithlessness to Gods law & order.

      I’m gonna burn the weeds of Feminism and re-sow the seeds of God’s Patriarchy.

      ☣ Toxically masculine since 1969 ~ Sharkly ☠♂

      Liked by 5 people

      • lastmod says:

        Again…these “red pill” men and “leaders” and “know it alls” are BELIEVING women, actually thinking that they care about the tons of single men. Honestly thinking women are panicking over this MGTOW.

        They’re not.

        You guys believe women, and fall for their virtue-signalling on any issue.

        You gus then take it five levels too far, go into very complex dating models, again invent “new” terms and make this overtly “intellectual” when it isn’t. Then, make their new theories and ideas suddenly “scientific method” and fact.

        Debate them? Ask a question??? Point perhaps something wrong in their process? Maybe a person who ACTUALLY knows this movement might have some insight?

        No, again…flat out arrogance. This is why your “red pill” thing for christians isn’t working, or growing.

        but what do I know?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        No one is saying that women care about single men, but they are certainly saying that women care about single themselves. And when the supply of men the single and ready to settle women are depending on to stick the landing aren’t there, that causes a stir. We see evidence of this disturbance in social media posts, articles, YT videos, etc when women who’s biological clock is ticking loudly ask, “Where have all the good men gone?” Further evidence is when they lament to their churchian pastors about how men won’t put a ring on it and we get another man up and marry sermon. Maybe we should refer to guys who decide to opt out of getting married to follow their passions and create their own path sans woman as M.E.N. (Males Evading Nuptials) instead of MGTOW, since that term the way you describe it includes men who don’t appear to choose singleness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        “This is why your “red pill” thing for Christians isn’t working, or growing.”

        Lastmod, despite your denial, I personally am making a difference, and others are too. Although conditions in the world are still getting worse, many minds are waking up to the fact that we’ve gone down a wrong road. They are getting nearer to a point of repentance or turning. What I know will never work is your despairing and moaning that nothing will work. I have the answers.(from the Bible and history) It is just a matter of sharing them and then getting others to adopt them or go along with them. And I can see that I’m making progress. You, however, mainly seem to see that women are still evil to you, and you choose to be heartbroken by their refusal to validate and appreciate you,(which they should, because you are in the image of God) and then you end up lashing out at God and others, because you are tormented, and they haven’t helped you. And in case you’re wondering, that won’t get you what you want, but instead just keeps you mired in the same spot. At this point for you to get what you hope for, in this life, would be a miracle. And the more angry you get at men, women, and God, for your situation, the less likely any woman will be yours, or any men will be able to help you. And God owes nobody. So your best bet is to continue to pray for yourself, because only God is able to help you find contentment in spite of your current circumstances. I’m sure you’re going to say that you already tried that and it didn’t work, but like in the parable of the unjust judge, just keep on praying, because I can guarantee that continuing in your despair and frustration won’t make things better for you. Your answer is to replace the relationship you desire with a woman, with seeking God. Even God said it was not good for the man to be alone, but having God is far better than not. However, if you don’t get back faithful to God, your eternity will be a hell worse than this life. So do yourself a favor and cast all your cares on God. And pray for His peace that surpasses all understanding. You’re a just man, and people like yourself make America better, but you need to rekindle your faith in Christ, otherwise your life will just be a tragedy of being used and abused with a hellacious ending. You too need to reach a point of turning, and turn to God and the Bible, not to churches or their snobs. Most of those folks in churches are faithless too, including their leaders. Don’t be mad at the Creator, beg Him for grace and mercy. Put your trust in God, not in churches or Christians. Unlike women, or men, He won’t despise you if you humbly seek for Him. He can bind up your wounds, He can heal your heart.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Preach Sharkly. It’s been about a year since my search for answers started me on a winding path through the manosphere. The path has involved contemplating scripture through a red pill lens, comfort in knowing that other men had similar relationship experiences and sharing what I figure out with any man that will listen. In the past few months, I have had in depth conversations (hours long) with 3 other men who are searching for answers. They all have multiple kids and will teach them what they need to know about men’s and women’s roles. The tide with turn against feminism and sin one man at a time.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “And when the supply of men the single and ready to settle women are depending on to stick the landing aren’t there, that causes a stir.”

        Something we’ll all do well to remember is that there’s been a small shift toward men and women not coupling up. It takes longer. There’s more dissatisfaction. That small shift is enough. It doesn’t require this going on on a massive scale, and in fact it isn’t. Most people are still marrying. Most people are still having children. What’s changing is that it takes longer to get there and the “satisfaction quotient” is a LOT lower on both ends. More and more men AND women are complaining a lot more loudly about marital dissatisfaction.

        There is a significantly greater percentage of people not marrying until a lot later. There is a significantly greater percentage of women not marrying at all. It’s not huge – the percentage of women not marrying by age 40 is up about 8 to 10 points from roughly 1985 to now – but it is enough to cause a shift in the discussion and as Nova pointed out, it’s rippling through the SMP and MMPs with a vengeance. It’s more of a rogue wave than a ripple, really.

        It’s causing people to talk about these problems. The Daughters of Elspeth are talking about it. Men here talk about it. Yes, men and women are still getting married, but many of them on both sides are having a LOT harder time getting there and a LOT less satisfaction when they get there.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Deti,

        If you spread this stuff to the best of your ability in your personal life, then it can get propagated beyond just this little website.

        Examples:

        My wife “gets” a lot of this stuff because I discuss it with her. She makes our (men’s) case sometimes with women that she interacts with online and in person. Red Pill spreading.

        I push this stuff at work with individuals (never in a group setting) sometimes. Including with women – yes, carefully worded. There are advantages to working in closed area labs where there’s sometimes just you and one other person – you can talk fairly freely – and there are no recording devices allowed.

        Liked by 5 people

  16. Pingback: ADIEU HUSsies Sell a Broken Script | Σ Frame

  17. lastmod says:

    “You, however, mainly seem to see that women are still evil to you, and you choose to be heartbroken by their refusal to validate and appreciate you…”

    Validate? No. I don’t get validated, not for a long, long time. The past validations were either “just friendly” / professional work environment / nuclear styled rejections. I am pretty much invisible now, probably since my forties…. which actually is at least bearable. It’s also because I am older…….. I really don’t go looking at touched-up photos of women in heat and rate them, or talk about boner tests…… I am fifty years old. Not fifteen. I don’t go “girl watch” because the pretty ones are taken or I would be viewed by the culture at large as a “creep”. They already have a high n count, and even if one did have severe “daddy issues”, I wouldn’t know what to do. The last date I had was a “group date” in grad school… and that doesn’t even really count…. and Clinton was still in his first term in office….

    I know full well of what I wanted in 2004 when it all fell apart very, very badly: I wanted sobriety. I wanted to be working in a somewhat okay job. I wanted to go to England / Wales and visit family. I wanted no more debt. I wanted to camp, backpack, and hike.

    I also wanted a wife. Or the experience of getting one, or at least learning how to get one.

    Well, I accomplished all of them, except the last one. Took me longer than most to get back on my feet (not that smart, nor well connected). It took fifteen years to finally go to England / Wales. I am still in debt, but it was to finance a practical car (mid-trim VW Jetta) that will be paid for in fall 2023. Hardly a luxury / overcompensation vehicle… though I could have got an Acura, Cadillac, Benz, or BMV with my good credit.

    I am told I owe my sobriety to Jesus. No. I owe that to hard work, I was “sick and tired” of being “sick and tired”.

    The Christians that I met at The Salvation Army helped with encouragement, some helps (food) and gave me “something to do” and in that Christian movement, there is always “tons to do”. I thank them, owe them, and I never will forget. They are mentioned in my Will. The works I did there accomplished nothing. It was selfish in the end actually, all it did was grow some skills for me, gave me some humility and accomplished nothing. Looking back, all the hours I could have moved a career much faster, used that time to actually behave like most men and actually meet women. No, I had to “follow god’s plan for my life” (be holy, chaste, wait on him and him alone). My forties were my last chance to perhaps meet a woman. I wasted it, blew it following a “christian script” when I should have behaved like every other single man my age (burp, fart, insult, put down, brag, boast, be arrogant…) and I probably would have been rewarded.

    That is what god wants for a man to “find” a wife in this modern world. Oh? he doesn’t want that? Well…… then he doesn’t care if you find one or not. God doesn’t play like a chess player, testing / trying you to see if she would be a good “match” for you, nor does he care if you do marry and she doesn’t put out or behaves badly. YOU made that choice, god has nothing to do with your mate selection. She behaved poorly? Well, god knew that she would right????

    What a joke.

    As for hell, if such a place really exists, 99.999999999999999999999 % of all the people that ever lived will be there. I am sure many of you will be there too.

    Like

  18. Pingback: Aristocratic Hypergamy | Σ Frame

  19. Elspeth says:

    I watched a film last night that is far more relevant to the average Christian woman’s trajectory than that of elite women. Most of are, after all, middle class and perhaps touching the border between MC and UMC. I thought it was particularly interesting because it reminded me of Sheila Gregoire, whose daughter -several years ago- reportedly married a thoroughly tattooed new convert of one year. I’m not interested in a gabfest about SWG, or her kid. I just remembered her as the movie closed out. I’m not interesting in judging her because it’s not like I did any better. In fact, I was worse.

    The movie was called “The Resurrection of Gavin Stone”. The synopsis from IMDB:

    A washed-up former child star, forced to do community service at a local megachurch, pretends to be a Christian to land the part of Jesus in their annual Passion Play, only to discover that the most important role of his life is far from Hollywood.

    Clean, feel-good flick, Dallas Jenkins directed, cue Christian conversion at the end. Hollywood bad boy turns Christian wins the heart of the good Christian girl, who happens to be the pastor’s daughter. Throughout the film, as he is getting to know and befriend the painfully nerdy single guys in the church, he asks questions about the young woman. One of them tells him, “She says there’s only room for one man in her life; Jesus. How are we supposed to compete with that?”

    Gavin doesn’t buy it for a minute. He knows she doesn’t have room for any of those guys. She makes him work for her attention (sorta), but by the end of the movie, she’s clearly taken. Even our 14-year-old figured out that more often than not, men raised outside the church have a more masculine presence than most churched boys. That was certainly my experience.

    It makes me sigh inside…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Elspeth – 100% yes on men who grew in the church. I am one of them and it does not turn out well for many of us, unmarried and married. It is one of the reasons I like SFC Ton’s comments so much. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with what he writes, how he states his opinions helps me keep my old way of thinking at bay.

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Most churches are just very feminizing in their approach.

        Unfortunately this isn’t new, as Leon Podles has documented here ( http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm ), so it isn’t likely to be easily dislodged. The problem runs much deeper than anything that happened in the 20th Century.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        The unmarried guys at the fictional church were a little too caricaturish. Very few men are that nerdy. But the only truly masculine male character, besides the title character, was a married auto mechanic.

        Whatever that tells you, I found it interesting that Dallas Jenkins played it that way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        The Catholic churches used to be full of middle age and old Italians who definitely weren’t feminine.
        I remember one sicilian who looked like a bear, carried a pocket pistol everywhere, and couldn’t “keep his eyes off broads.”

        My grandpa pulled a knife on a Nazarene preacher over a card game. Christian men didn’t used to be wimps.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Pocket pistols are so unbecoming at church. At church, side arms belong on your ankle in your boot. This is common knowledge in civilized society.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Yes I always liked knife fight night at the local church!I always bring my glock feild knife that gives all the women tingles for years non-stop!Then the knife fight begins as they all faint in unison!All the local toughies show up as we agree to disagree about everything!

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Isn’t that just like a wop, brings a knife to a gunfight.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        If I brought my fully automatic glock pistol the poopoo might get involved at best or people might have heart attacks at worst&be sent to the hospitol &with the non-affordable care act who can afford the co-pays?

        Liked by 2 people

  20. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Thats what all that tattoo stuff was about with gregoire vs.alexander?I like where she stood up for men having tats&fornicating after it became kosher for wimminz to have tatz&fornicate openly in public with the churches overt approval!Realy brave of shiela being so anti-current culture!In the pre-women having tats&nose rings she would have said its okay to have tatz or piecings?As has been said for years in the christian-manosphere,churches are the main beta factories!Second only to public ”education”!You learn much more from observing then any cuurriculum taught by ”teachers”!I forgot vinny mac financed that film!So shawn could partly live hogans film ‘career’&vinnys horrible latter-day pg-rated wrestling!That only worked in pre-internet time!Not after the mainstreaming of porn plus ECW!Elspeth we never judge you here do we!?

    Like

  21. Pingback: The Upper Middle Class Career Life Script Model | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Patriarchy is the Default Setting | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Patriarchy is the Default Context | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: Dolearchy Trumps Patriarchy | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: How to Change a Hostile Culture | Σ Frame

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s