Patriarchy is the Default Context

The easiest way to sell patriarchy is to make it either the best or the only card left to play.

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: In this essay, upper-middle (and higher) class marriages are referred to as UMC/+ Marriages, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages are referred to as LMC/- Marriages.
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? (31 May 2021)

Good question!

This post continues to explore this topic and adds a few insights that came up in the comments.

Why are UMC/+ Marriages more Egalitarian?

NovaSeeker wrote,

“Overall, it seems clear that upper-middle (and higher) class marriages (which I will refer to here as UMC/+ Marriages) are more egalitarian and more feminized yet less prone to divorce, while lower middle (and lower) class marriages (which I will refer to here as LMC/- Marriages) tend to be more patriarchal, yet more prone to divorce.”

This brought up the more basic question of why upper class marriages in the west are more egalitarian yet less prone to divorce. We saw a lot of good discussion on this topic under this post, but I doubt we could run down a single reason that could apply to every case.

However, it is clear that the basic answer is because the UMC and higher have a vested political and economic interest in staying married, while nobody else has that restraint. That political interest includes preserving their coterie in the upper ranks through the future and protecting their progeny’s ability to continue in the same.

Actually, this reflects the ancient Biblical model of the tribal family, and it underscores the primary element of staying married. Without this overriding emphasis on hedging the tribe’s equity and nurturing its social domain, and the intergenerational continuity of the same, the only other way to stay married is to get married for the right reason.

This brings us to another part of the equation. American cultural roots have drifted far away from the Biblical ideal. The failure of patriarchy among all classes has to do with how Americans handle marriage itself. No one gets married for the right reasons. No one even knows what the right reasons are! Because of the pervasive ignorance about the spiritual purpose of marriage, marital trouble is therefore highly likely across all classes.

Another piece of the puzzle is because the overall happiness of upper level income families depends more on lifestyle and economic status. Therefore, marital happiness (a secular code word for sanctification) is less of an issue in the stability of these marriages compared to other population demographics. For the majority of cases, I think, the relative popularity, the trappings of wealth, and the various conveniences of this lifestyle offer a panoply of very satisfying idols that can offer an effective distraction from the pain of a deeper spiritual poverty.

Another element is the stability that wealth provides. The financial status of the UMC/+ allows more latitude to drift away from Headship and operate outside of God’s ordained order without being crushed by the consequences thereof. Novaseeker made this clear in his post, Sticking the Landing is for the Elite (2021 May 10).

But so far, we’ve only covered why the UMC/+ marriages are less prone to divorce. We haven’t yet looked at why LMC/- marriages are more patriarchal.

Why are LMC/- Marriages more Patriarchal?

People of different SECs hold different values.

  • UC values life success, education for the sake of status, financial stability, wealth preservation, the status-laden lifestyle, and making sure their children can continue in the same. They marry for the trans-generational continuation of the same.
  • MC values career success, education for the sake of upward mobility and income, fashion trends that imitate UC (like having a large house and an SUV), and a focus on the family and religion. They marry because It’s the right time.”
  • LC values “fun” life experiences, resiliency, and later in life, socializing. They marry for “love”.

As you can see, the UMC/+ and the LMC/- have different sets of prerogatives in life. The priorities of the LMC/- are more closely attuned to the purpose of Marriage 1.0, which Deti described here.

“Give the man a little “empire”. Give the woman a home, safety, and security. A safe place for man and woman’s sexual expression. A safe and secure place for rearing children and preparing them for adulthood. Amassing some property to pass on to children. Overall order, peace, and tranquility.”

This reflects the traditional model of the nuclear family, which emphasizes the joys of living. This sense of joy is characterized by family gatherings, barbecues, holiday celebrations, church attendance, sports game competitions, football parties, and the like. This is the primary lifestyle that provides the contextual environment in which LMC/- marriages form, prosper, and thrive.

This social involvement provides an element of stability which wealth cannot offer. The need for social relevance in the absence of excessive wealth also goads the members of this group to stay tuned into socality and to appreciate the various rewards of their hard work. In this context, Headship can be an effective structure of authority which allows all else to operate more smoothly.

The overall happiness of mid and lower level income families rides on social connections, family, and fellowship more than lifestyle and economic status. Therefore, marital happiness (i.e. sanctification) is not such a far stretch to achieve. The worst kinds of effects come from impulsiveness, stupid decisions, the influences of churchianity, feminism, and progressivism, and trying to mimic the worst characteristics of the upper class.

At heart, Tomi Lahren is a MC striver who jumped off track.

The Present Difficulty of Maintaining Headship

This is a bad time in history to pursue the Biblical model of patriarchal Headship in marriage. Deti made the point that Patriarchy is a figment of Marriage 1.0, but that we are living in an age of Marriage 2.0. He gave us five conclusions that describe the implications of this discrepancy.

  1. You get what you incentivize. When you incentivize love, higher purpose, future time orientation, and God-worship, you get Marriage 1.0. When you incentivize wealth accumulation, self-purpose, present time orientation, and self-worship, you get Marriage 2.0.
  2. Marriage 1.0 does not work without mature, outward minded, God-fearing participants who care about the children and future. Marriage 2.0 works with people who can dissolve the marriage anytime, are self-centered and self absorbed, and ignore God.
  3. In a society that encourages Marriage 2.0 (which we have now), there is no reason to form a 1.0 Marriage, because society will actively work to undermine and destroy it. In the event it dissolves, it will be done so under Marriage 2.0 rules, which crush the participants and care only about “who’s gonna pay?”
  4. If you’re a bottom 80%er, you can’t amass property without it being taken away in a later divorce. If you are in this set and you marry and later divorce, you both will be REALLY bad off, probably worse off than if you had never married in the first place. There is no reason to amass property if it will just be consumed in a divorce.
  5. One need not marry to have sex, or bear or raise children. Current society has removed all restraints on sexual behavior, and has normalized out of wedlock childbirth. The only logical reason to marry now is if marriage will magnify and maximize property accumulation.

Deti concluded,

“The main reason we have a sexual free for all and out of wedlock birth is because for a long time, our society has been rich enough to pay for it and to absorb the social and monetary costs.”

“Patriarchy is for the Deplorables.”

Case Study – OkraHead’s Anti-Deplorable Ex

OkraHead told a story that is oddly reminiscent of some others we’ve read about before.

“Prior to divorce, my now ex-wife and I were very solidly UMC in income… Well on our way to double the base line for UMC in our state. The ex decided she wanted a divorce because I was “too controlling” (patriarchy, anyone?). She admitted under oath there was no adultery, no abuse, no addiction… She just wanted to have “more fun.” Less than a decade later she went from UMC to being on welfare and crying because she can’t get in to see a decent doctor with her Medicaid card. As far as the religious aspect goes, following the divorce she openly renounced her faith… She says she no longer believes “any of that stuff.” She gave up her faith, her marriage, etc. because she couldn’t live under “patriarchy”.”

In this case, Patriarchy really was the make-it-or-break-it turning point in the marriage and her faith. If she had accepted Patriarchy, then she could have had the whole ball of yarn. But then again, a ball of yarn is useless without cats, so it’s better (in her mind) to have cats.

Patriarchy vs. Sexual License

NovaSeeker brought out the point that the failure of marriage among all classes is not about Patriarchy at all, but simply because of wimminz desire for sexual freedom. Patriarchy is merely an archaic obstacle that stands in the way.

“Sex is the core issue. It always will be as long as the sexual revolution governs the broad society’s sexual mores. It’s also the main reason (leaving aside the people who are sexually abused or what have you) for why people leave the faith, generally, not just divorcing people — people don’t want Christianity’s rules about sex, and they don’t want to feel guilty about sex, either, so they leave and flit around from X to Y non-Christian pseudo-religion like Pop Buddhism or something similar where they can feel “spiritual” but not have any moral rules about sex. This is the entire reason people are “spiritual but not religious” — not because they are die-hard atheists (those people tend not to be spiritual, they see it all as “woo”, as a site like RationalWiki makes clear), but because they don’t want any moral rules about sex because they don’t want to follow any of those rules, and also don’t want to feel guilty about breaking them.

It’s. All. About. Sex.

It truly is. The rest is a smokescreen in the case of most people.”

OkraHead summed it up by saying,

“…for a large portion (majority?) of American womynz, mud huts and the freedom to slut around are preferable to patriarchy and the white picket fence.”

Thus, the sex epidemic ensues.


All things considered, the LMC/- are hard pressed to make Headship/Patriarchy work, because the alternatives are either to ascend to UMC/+ status or else divorce. Therefore, couples in the LMC/- have the following sets of choices.

  1. Economic Ascendancy — Climb up the socio-economic ladder (which is difficult).
  2. Divorce — Abandon the marriage (also difficult, but not as much as (1)).
  3. Submit — Accept Patriarchal Headship and enjoy the barbecue.

Ultimately, womyn hold the decision making power in this matter. (“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”) Because women will not stick with a wishy-washy man over the long haul of marriage, and because options (1) and (2) are infinitely more appetizing to fearal womynz’ preferences, then option (3) is only accepted by those particular women who either cannot avail of the first two options, or who truly love and respect their husbands. Since a divorce which benefits the woman is so easy to attain, this means that the majority of LMC/- marriages that remain intact are decidedly more patriarchal in nature.

So, to further answer the question contained in the title of NovaSeeker’s post, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables?, we see that LMC/- marriages are not LMC/- because they are patriarchal, nor are they patriarchal because they are LMC/-, but simply because only the patriarchal marriages survive!


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Collective Strength, Complementarianism, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Headship and Patriarchy, Joy, Male Power, Models of Success, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, SEC Studies, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Stewardship. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Patriarchy is the Default Context

  1. Novaseeker says:

    option (3) is only accepted by those particular women who either cannot avail of the first two options, or who truly love and respect their husbands. Since a divorce which benefits the woman is so easy to attain, this means that the majority of LMC/- marriages that remain intact are decidedly more patriarchal in nature.

    So, to further answer the question contained in the title of NovaSeeker’s post, Is Patriarchy for Deplorables?, we see that LMC/- marriages are not LMC/- because they are patriarchal, nor are they patriarchal because they are LMC/-, but simply because only the patriarchal marriages survive!

    This is correct, I think, but it leads to the further conclusion that this kind of marriage is going to be an extreme outlier in our social and economic conditions. In both UMC/+ and LMC/- situations there are outliers where the wife is so attracted to the husband’s manliness that it becomes a patriarchal situation (the obvious difference between the two being the massive differential in said man’s income), but those are outliers in both situations.

    If you’re among the 95%+ who are not outliers, you have a pretty good chance of having a secularly successful marriage as a UMC/+, due to factors extrinsic to the relationship itself, while you have a pretty poor chance of having a secularly successful marriage if you are LMC/-.

    So, just to drop to the punch line here, the moral of the story for men is that if you are LMC/+ and you aren’t an outlier in terms of your alpha-ness/manliness/etc. so as to inspire the degree of attraction in a woman needed to sustain Jack’s situation (3), then you’re taking a whale of a risk by marrying, and you may want to consider other life options carefully.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Novaseeker says:

    A few grab-bad items from today’s Google feed:

    1. Not all relationship advice given by women to other women is bad … even in a place like Medium, which is notorious for its feminist nonsense. Today comes this example, from a writer who normally writes a lot of drivel but who nevertheless gives what I think quite sound advice to other women here:

    2. On a less encouraging note, we have this missive from a Catholic criticizing the Catholic marriage prep process for being … too theologically correct. (The artricle is from the “National Catholic Reporter” …. for those readers who are unfamiliar, Catholicism has a civil war going on currently, and there are two main lay-run “newspapers” with misleadingly similar names, each of which represents one of the main combatants in the civil war … the “National Catholic Reporter” represents the progressive/left/Jesuit side and the “National Catholic Register” represents the ne-conservative/right/EWTN side). It’s truly amazing that the writer thinks that marriage prep should be oriented and designed around the needs of older widowers with shrinking-violet non-Catholic fiancees. Yet another indicator that “it’s all about me”, it seems to me.

    Liked by 4 people

    • elspeth says:

      That first article offers some oddly good advice. Makes you wonder if she had a drink or two and the truth spilled out accidentally when she sat in front of her computer, LOL.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RE: first article.

        Her paragraph on f-ckbois. It’s all about her missed opportunities for a relationship. No sense of the wrong committed against her future husband by banging f-ckbois. All about her and her interests. Not that I’d expect such awareness from her.

        Just sayin’


      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah of course it isn’t going to be about the wrong involved — it isn’t a Christian piece in any stretch of the imagination, and she’s writing to convince young, sexually active, women readers. It is fairly against the grain, though, to write what she did in Medium — goes way against the norm for that kind of place.


      • cameron232 says:

        oh yeah- I know all that – just looking for a reason to complain


      • elspeth says:

        Hey, Cameron. This is totally and completely off topic, but I thought maybe your kiddos might find this interesting. It actually reminded me a great deal of a post I did a while back where my husband caught a bit of “wild Florida” in our back yard.

        We also spent a lot of time in rural forests and on hiking trails -such as they are in a flat state- during spring, fall and winter 2020. So I thought it was cool that Circe featured that story.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Thanks Elspeth. They’ll like that.

        We’ve experienced wild Florida in our backyard. In 2016 while my wife was at the UCF trump rally (son got a hat from Kelly Anne) a hawk like that killed our chickens. The next year my wife caught a bunch of raccoons killing the replacement chickens – bit their heads off. Absolutely true story – my wife killed two of the raccoons with my son’s hog knife. She was really mad because our youngest son loved those chickens. I married Rambo’s daughter. Less girlie than Mychael I guess.

        Love the Mutual of Omaha’s reference.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      NCR has a few traditionalists who have slipped in under the radar e.g. Jim Kalb.


    • cameron232 says:

      From first article:

      “He had exactly one picture and nothing in his bio, but I was at a place in my life where I thought, “Why not?” and swiped right.”

      She hit Rollo’s “epiphany phase.”

      “When we walk away from abusive or unfaithful or some other kind of bad partner, we are choosing to love ourselves more than that relationship.”

      Don’t know where the stereotype that women choose douches over nice guys comes from???

      “Certified Relationship Coach” how the fudge do you get that title?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    What about rollo going blackpill with how bad the SMP/MMP will be by 2030 for women most of whom will be single cat-ladys from the simpsons?No one wants to talk about that?His interview is’nt called ”a dark future is on the horizon for nothing!”


    • Novaseeker says:

      I’m always skeptical of specific dates — too hard to predict that specifically.

      Remember, Imran Khan had the “misandry bubble popping” in 2020. That manifestly did not happen. It doesn’t mean that the trends that he identified were false, but trying to pin them on a specific timeline is always extremely dicey due to the proliferation of variables involved, including the “unknown unknowns”, to use Donald Rumsfeld’s regrettably memorable phrase.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Off the cuff, one of the main reasons the misandry bubble still hasn’t popped is because we still have the (fiat) money and credit to keep the status quo rolling. I remember people shrieking about how bad things were financially during Reagan’s terms, and that was coming up on 40 years ago. “Budget deficit! National debt! We’re the worlds biggest debtor! This is unsustainable!” It is perfectly and indefinitely sustainable when you have the world’s best credit card issued by creditors who really need their debtor to keep spending and buying the stuff said creditors are manufacturing.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I agree on the financial piece — that gravy train keeps chugging along, longer than almost anyone in the naysayer camp has predicted.

        I think it also has to do with things that popped up. I don’t think anyone, including him, foresaw the rise of wokeness like it has done since 2018 or so, and particularly during COVID. COVID itself has had a massive impact which is ongoing and remains unsettled in terms of ultimate effect culturally and politically, but at the very least served to consolidate, focus and amplify the militant cultural left in ways that were not predictable, and which have delayed any “popping” of the misandry bubble likely by at least a generation, if not more. Increasingly it looks like the bubble that is getting popped is “non-apex white men” and not “misandry” to be honest.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        “I agree on the financial piece — that gravy train keeps chugging along, longer than almost anyone in the naysayer camp has predicted.”

        The gravy train will come to an abrupt halt when, and only when, there is a more credit worthy option than the US. Right now we’re simply the least worst of all the options, people are still interested in government bonds as an investment option and money has to go somewhere. Hence, US debt is still the primary option in the world. Since it takes an exceedingly long time to 1. implement economic system changes, if this can be done to the extent necessary in other countries and then 2. grow their economy to the scale of the US’ we’re not losing our spot in the pecking order any time soon and it will be even longer for us to drop out of the top handful. As long as there is not a massive, and I mean massive to the point it makes what we do now look conservative, overreach on using debt to finance our largesse people will still fund it for us at silly low rates.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ray says:

        That’s what people get for listening to Imran Khan, whoever he is. No wonder the lost stay lost.

        The misandry bubble will not pop until Jeshua returns. I’ll bet Imran Khan didn’t know that.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. thedeti says:

    These might sound pithy.

    The UMC is more egalitarian because:

    1) in today’s society, women have been brought on par with men in every meaningful way: legally, politically, economically, socially, educationally, and professionally. Women are legally permitted to do everything men can do. So it’s natural that more women in the UMC would expect to be treated as “equals”.

    2) Most men and women in the UMC got there the same way – education and employment. It’s natural that a woman who, through her education and job, isn’t any less qualified than her husband is to make decisions, will expect to be treated as an “equal” in her marriage.

    3) Most men have been conditioned hard and deep to see women as equals. Most men in this set have UMC mothers who were “equal”. They went to college with and work with women who were equals, a few of them being superior in intelligence or work ethic or upbringing.

    4) The Marriage 2.0 model on which most UMC marriages are based, is premised on happiness and self actualization. The woman’s happiness and self actualization are just as important as, but no more important than, his are. In theory. (In a patriarchal model, the foundation is roles, operation within roles, and headship/submission. In patriarchy, some things are more important than others at different times.)

    5) These people don’t know how to do it any other way. No one, absolutely no one, teaches, preaches, expects, demonstrates, or extols true headship or submission. What you have is a lot of Christian men LARPing at headship (servant leader, you must love and respect her and get her what she wants because that’s what a true leader does) and Christian women LARPing at submission (you submit when he is doing what you want and expect him to do and you’re pleased with him; you need not submit otherwise). But this is neither true headship nor true submission. This is because headship is burdensome and makes men unhappy; and because submission requires trust that these women don’t have for their husbands, and that scares them, and that makes women unhappy.

    We cannot have unhappiness in the Marriage 2.0 model. Unhappy marriages in this model are failed marriages.

    I have said this so many times: Everyone needs to remember that there is absolutely no such thing as an “egalitarian” marriage. In any relationship between 2 people, one is the dominant and the other is the submissive. Whoever occupies these roles can shift, but someone always acts as the dominant, and the other always submits. It can’t operate any other way. It just can’t. Someone has to make the final decision. Someone has to “break the tie”. In most UMC Marriage 2.0 marriages, that person is usually the woman, because she manipulates, threatens, frauds and gaslights her way there. Most of the time, the woman sends this message:

    I need to do this my way, or else I will be a b!tch to you, refuse to have sex with you, sh!ttalk you to our friends and my parents, sulk and pout, and otherwise make everyone in this house miserable. And it’ll be that way until I get what I want.

    I know the womenfolk who post here don’t get this. But this is exactly what most women do – even most Christian women. And everyone here knows it. I’m just willing to admit it, and write it down. Don’t blame me, it’s not my fault. I’m just the messenger.

    Liked by 9 people

    • thedeti says:

      When you get all the way down to it, when it gets to nut cuttin’ time, most women do not respect their husbands, and they do not trust their husbands. True submission requires trust and respect. She trusts him to take care of it. She trusts that he has her best interests in mind. She respects his position (a position she decided to put him in by selecting him as her husband). She respects his strengths, most of which are characteristics she lacks.

      Most men put up with this, because p_ssy. And in the UMC, money, 401(k)s, kids and their college, and jobs.

      Most men will not exercise true headship, because it is hard, and because most men do not love their wives the way their wives need to be loved. True headship and love for a woman requires developing a mission and vision and setting the frame, and expecting her to help. It requires putting down guardrails for her, requiring her to stay within them and imposing consequences for not staying in them, telling her “no”, washing her with the Word, and imparting wisdom to her.

      All this is really difficult. It demands a level of mental fortitude, confidence, inner resolve, and abundance mentality that most men simply don’t have because no one’s ever developed it in them. It also requires him to stand, alone, against literally everyone – even his parents, his pastor, and his wife – the very woman he’s supposed to be doing all this for. It might require him to walk away from her and leave her, legally. It might require him to do without a lot. And that is crushingly difficult.

      Damn near all of you women don’t trust and respect your husbands.

      Damn near all of us men don’t love our wives the way they need to be loved.

      There. I said it. Don’t get mad at me. It’s not my fault. I’m just the messenger.

      Liked by 7 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Damn near all of us men don’t love our wives the way they need to be loved.”

        “Loving your wife the way she needs to be loved” in today’s dysfunctional, anarcho-tyrannical train wreck of a society will very likely lead to a man wearing an orange jumpsuit.

        Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      The man has to set the frame and invite the woman to come into it.

      What usually happens is that she sets the frame and he comes into hers.

      Or if he has already built a frame, she demands to come in and start tearing down and redesigning and rebuilding the frame he’s already built.

      No. The most she gets to do is decorate the frame and make it look a little prettier.

      Liked by 6 people

    • thedeti says:

      And another thing –

      I do not want to hear women say “Well, we’d trust and respect you if you’d love us the way we are supposed to be loved and you really acted like the head of the marriage.”

      No. You women have to submit FIRST. You women have to trust and respect FIRST.

      You are the ones who picked these men. You are the ones who decided to have sex with them and marry them. You are the ones who decide when and whether sex happens. You are the ones who decide who gets the sex. You are the ones who decide whether a relationship gets formed.

      Why in the ever loving …. did you pick a man you don’t trust and respect to handle things and get things done? Why did you pick a man you don’t trust to treat you well? Why did you pick a man you don’t respect? WHY?

      He doesn’t have to prove anything to you. You should have already accepted his abilities and trusted and respected him BEFORE the marriage. You decided to put him in that position. If anything, you have to prove yourself to him by trusting and respecting the man you decided to lay down with, marry, and make babies with.


      When you trust and respect him, you make it much, much easier and more palatable for a man to undertake the distasteful headship tasks. You trust and respect him – he’ll break his a$$ for you. he’ll work himself into an early grave for you. He’ll give you his absolute very best, every day. He’ll do almost anything you ask, unless he can’t because it’s outside the rules he had to set down. He’ll take on that headship role gladly. He’ll tell the rest of the world to f__k off with glee.

      You submit first. You trust and respect first. You picked them. You make the first move.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        What the hell, women? You “trust and respect” him enough to let him put his penis in your vagina and ejaculate into you, but not enough to make the rules you need?

        You “trust and respect” him enough to let him buy you a $100 dinner, but not enough to accept his mission and vision and step into his frame?

        You “trust and respect” him enough to be his baby mama, but not enough to submit to the plan he has?

        You “trust and respect” him enough to say “yes” to his marriage proposal and thereby gain access to his money, but not enough to submit to his decisions on how best to spend it?

        You “trust and respect” him enough to marry him and live in the same house with him and be nice to you , but not enough to submit to him and let him get things done the best way he knows how?

        What the f__k is wrong with you women?

        That dog don’t hunt. Woman up.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        You are on a roll today.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        Deti, these are all definitely true of a lot of men but not all men. 😞


      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Deti thats basicaly what rollo says in that ”a dark future is on the rise feat,rollo tomossi”interview that women say if you sugar up the truth then they will like&love you when all of us long-term redpillers especialy know thats not true,right?Also women ”don’t want to give up their indeoendence”?Thats the part where they can f off alone with cats,right?

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      “In any relationship between 2 people, one is the dominant and the other is the submissive.”

      Truer words never spoken. Can’t have a democracy with 2 people unless they always agree.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        The advocates of that approach recognize that. They turn that around and say “an intimate relationship isn’t supposed to be like a political system or a corporation, it’s supposed to be an ongoing conversation, where both parties share and discuss and talk constantly and reach decisions that way”.

        It’s just a misdirection, of course, because at the end of the day even if you buy into the “ongoing conversation” model, the person who is better at conversing dominates, and that’s almost always the woman because women have verbal skills, on average, in excess of men’s.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Do you give an 8 year old an IPHONE or not?

        Let’s say I answer “no.” If she give the 8 year old an IPHONE (and I don’t put a stop to it) then she runs the marriage.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        You’re supposed to talk about it. Open a dialogue. Start a conversation. Be emotionally present and be emotionally strong enough to sit with your discomfort at her actions without trying to reverse them or otherwise controlling the outcome. Sit with your discomfort. Do your own work on your feelings of powerless and discomfort, etc.


      • cameron232 says:

        sounds pretty gay to me – just cut my nuts off.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        It is gay.

        That’s a feature, not a bug, by the way. Remember while the insistence was that gay marriage would have no impact on straight marriages, at the same time the feminist advocates for it were very hopeful that gay marriage would end up importing gay norms about how to relate where there aren’t “sex norms” would be imported into straight marriages. So, yes it’s gay, very much so.

        Non-monogamy is another coming attraction in terms of marital norms that is also gay.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        You are also supposed to know and articulate your boundaries, and if the relationship isn’t working, leave. After you have both expressed your needs/desires/must haves, etc if you find that you have grown apart, you acknowledge it and move on amicably.

        I had exactly ONE break up like that in graduate school. It is very rare.

        Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      “I know the womenfolk who post here don’t get this. But this is exactly what most women do – even most Christian women. “

      NO ONE will ever convince that if Jesus were to reappear in the flesh today –and I mean the Jesus of the Gospels, not the “Buddy Jesus” so popular among churchians– that 99 percent of the Western Women who think of themselves as “Christian” would find Him a repulsive, misogynistic creep and would not only abandon any pretense of Christian faith, but would attempt to have Him “canceled.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • caterpillar345 says:

      In response to Deti’s “This might sound pithy… 1-5″, from my perspective, these are the reasons why egalitarian marriages are so prevalent.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. redpillboomer says:

    Interesting read. I was just thinking and wondering about ‘lane changing’ females in the 27-36 age range. I get it that some of the difficulties changing lanes lies in things we point out all the time in the Mansophere such as high N-counts, pair bonding issues, modern day younger men doing some form of MGTOW, etc. etc. Could some of the difficulty lie in that UMC females, when they start thinking about ‘changing lanes’ are running into some sort of ‘cultural mashup’ between Marriage 2.0 thinking and Marriage 1.0? For instance, the ladies (and guys too because of cultural conditioning) are operating throughout their twenties with an eventual 2.0 Marriage floating around in the back of their minds, e.g. when they are ready to stop having their ‘fun’ and start their families as the wall approaches. BUT (and help me out here a bit Novaseeker), they unknowingly are mixing Marriage 1.0 themes back into the 2.0 template and coming up with something untenable nowadays. By untenable I mean, it doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s kind of like a twist on our Matrix metaphor, they took the red pill (modern day Marriage 2.0 thinking) and swallowed it, now they can’t get back to the blue pill (Marriage 1.0 template) that they may only now about vicariously (their grandparent’s marriage or old films portrayal of marriage, etc); or possibly more like they are wanting, unknowingly, a sort of ‘greatest hits,’ i.e. the best of both worlds, the best traits of a 2.0 and 1.0 all rolled into one and it’s causing them a lot of cognitive dissonance. Your pic of Tomi Lahren got me thinking along these lines. Yes, we’ve all dissected the points of her ridiculous PSA for Boyish Men rant from last summer; however for Ms. Lahren and all her likeminded-girlfriends out there, might part of her/their problem be, besides wanting a top 1% dude- a Giga Chad to wife them up RIGHT NOW, be she/they got/have this 2.0/1.0 mashup rolling subconsciously around in that rationalization hamster of hers/theirs, and it is NOT TENABLE these days? So they all see some outlier pull it off, maybe a celebrity or something like that, but for the 99.99% of them, it doesn’t work this way, e.g. best of 2.0/1.0 combined.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      I think that is always the apex optimal for some women — the “alpha bux” guy. That guy is 1.0 and 2.0 combined. He can and does fulfill both paradigms. Think Ryan Reynolds. That’s always been the apex optimal outcome for all women other than the ones who are personally very ambitious themselves (i.e., the ones who want themselves to be the CEO, managing partner, etc. and to be married either to a man who is the same or to a man who is supportive but ultra-hot “trophy SAHD”). For a woman who is still looking for that in the 30s, it’s a sign that she still hasn’t switched lanes.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Yes, Ryan Reynolds is the perfect alpha bux. Handsome. Fit. Confident. Dominant. High earner. Socially adept, quick witted, can command a room. Professionally preeminent, recognized as one of the best at what he does.

        But, at the same time: Friendly. Affable. Approachable. Down to earth. Handsome, but not gorgeous. Not an a-hole. Attentive. Faithful to his wife. Trustworthy. Easy to work with. Good-humored, can take a joke and can laugh at himself. Comfortable in his own skin.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “…they unknowingly are mixing Marriage 1.0 themes back into the 2.0 template and coming up with something untenable nowadays. By untenable I mean, it doesn’t work that way anymore.”

      This has been going on a long time but it is something that many people have commented about in the ‘sphere.

      Women, being human, want the best of both worlds. They want all the authority and perks, with none of the responsibilities or obligations. They want to move fluidly between gender roles in their marriages, while demanding that men take on traditionally male gender roles at all times. That’s what you’re seeing here.

      Most of it revolves around money. They want to work and work and work, until it comes time to have their children, and then they want to be SAHMs. They want to be “strong and independent” except when on a date, when they want men they outearn to pay the costs of the date. It’s simply because “you are the man and it’s your job to pay”. “You are the man and you are supposed to work while I take care of the baby.”

      Except, of course, when it comes time to making rules for the relationship and major decisions. Oh, yes, THEN we are “equals” and it’s “why do you get to make the rules? This isn’t a dictatorship!” and “No, we’re supposed to do it together!”

      So, that’s a big part of what’s going on.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Elspeth says:

        As Nova has expressed quite well, there are plenty of men willing to split the headship in exchange for a wife who brings in an income to help support a particular lifestyle. From my observation, there are more men like that than there have ever been. We all have the advantages of hindsight, age, and personal experience from which to draw as we look at the desolate landscape. It’s easy for middle aged men to go on about wanting a woman to follow them and a woman being able to submit, especially when she wants to stay home with the kids.

        But young men, the few who are even looking for a wife, are largely still living under the impression that they can find happiness and fulfillment in an egalitarian marriage with the average woman. They think they’re going to get this, but are then shocked when they wake up one day to see that they have this.

        We are a culture more obsessed with having our cake and eating too than probably any other in history. Except maybe the boomers, but they actually were able somehow to have their cake and eat it too.

        Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        “It’s easy for middle aged men to go on about wanting a woman to follow them and a woman being able to submit, especially when she wants to stay home with the kids.”

        Not sure exactly what you’re saying there. I’m not “going on” about anything, other than setting out what we all know to be true. I suppose it’s “easy” to talk about, compared to living it and building it midstream. We didn’t all have your advantages. In fact, almost none of us had your advantages.

        “But young men, the few who are even looking for a wife, are largely still living under the impression that they can find happiness and fulfillment in an egalitarian marriage with the average woman.”

        I suppose. If they are, we know why – because they’ve been indoctrinated to accept an “egalitarian” marriage as normal and natural and even required.

        Yes, the boomers got to have their cake and eat it too – the Silents gave them their cake, while we GenXers were told to clean up their mess and presented with the bill. Thanks, Boomers.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        The boomers were early enough in the change cycle such that just enough of the “old ways” were still present so as to make things more tolerable (for men, for Christians, etc) for most of life. Each generation after them has had less and less of the “old ways” available to it, and today they are basically absent more or less.

        Keeping in mind, of course, that the Boomers also had the highest divorce rate generationally. One thing Boomers love, passionately, is divorce.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “You are the man and it’s your job to pay.”

        Um. OK. You are the woman and it’s your job to lay.

        “You are the man and you are supposed to work while I take care of the baby.”

        Um. Ok. You are the woman and you are supposed to do what I say and follow my lead so things get done the way they need to get done.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Reynolds also has platinum-level pre-selection.

      And he also has the ability to deal with Blake Lively’s nuclear-level public shit tests without missing a beat, and with aplomb. Even most Hollywood guys couldn’t really manage that. Reynolds is about 1 in a million, perhaps more, in rarity.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        And at some point, Reynolds will take Blake aside with…

        Seriously. You need to knock that sh!t off. Now. It used to be funny. You’re starting to irritate me now.

        And she’ll stop. If she doesn’t…. just another Hollywood divorce.

        A good example of a Hollywood legend having an ex wife hand his ass to him is Johnny Depp, who has spent the last year having Amber Heard drag him around the entire country.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yep. Depp got a bit greedy, I think, exercised some bad judgment, and it has destroyed him.

        He had a perfectly fine, very attractive wife in Vanessa Paradis, who pretty much adored him, with all of his issues. But he wanted hotter/younger/tighter, and fell for Heard, who he was shooting a film with, and was 24-25 at the time (Depp was 43-44). Heard has always had bad news written all over her, total maneater type, but she is hot when she’s dolled fully up, for certain. And he fell for her, and down he went. If he’d stayed with Paradis none of that would have happened. Oh well.

        Same happened to Brad Pitt, really. Angelina ran the marriage, and ran circles around him for years. Pitt did finally manage to extricate himself from the situation (and hardly appears to have been the choir-boy himself, but that’s to be expected, I mean he did leave his wife to be with Angelina).

        Just because you’re a Hollywood actor doesn’t mean you can’t have a woman, especially the kind of woman who has the psychological bag of tricks of someone like Heard or Jolie, walk all over you. Matt Damon had the right idea in marrying a bartender, really (but he’s smarter than most of them).

        Same could happen to Reynolds with Lively, although I get the impression based on how she interfaces with him and how many kids they are having and so on that she is quite satisfied with him — because he’s basically one a million or so guys. Someone like Pitt or Depp could have in no way dealt with Lively at all I think.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Oh, I get the impression that Blake Lively is not Amber Heard psychob!tch nor Angelina Jolie turbob!tch. That’s a big part of how she meshes with Reynolds so well. Lively is a very attractive woman but also appears outwardly to be a down to earth woman who is content being a wife to Reynolds and a mother to his children as well as letting her career take a backseat to his. So in a lot of ways, Reynolds and Lively appear to be a regular nuclear family .

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        So in a lot of ways, Reynolds and Lively appear to be a regular nuclear family .

        I agree. The telling thing, though, is that, even in a world full of apex alphas, you have to be the AMOG of AMOGs to get that kind of marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Elspeth says:

    I didn’t mean to be insulting deti, with my phraseology. By “going on” I simply meant our ability to express clearly and without ambiguity what should be, what is, and the reasons for the chasm between the two. It’s easy to do from a higher vantage point. You’ve seen more, experienced more, and know more. So you can “go on” about it. I am in the same boat. The unwavering strength of my husband’s constitution (and my dad’s as well) that gave me whatever advantages I had going into marriage. I didn’t feel advantaged though, I can tell you that!

    Younger people have been taught differently and for most it’s not until they are in the thick of it that reality will set in. I am not a fan of the old saying about experience being the best teacher. I tell our kids that they will hurt a lot less if they learn from their dad’s and my experiences. But the reality is that this is one area where most people are too emotionally driven to learn anything without taking the hits.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Elspeth I took&made most of my hits in the 80s!By the mid-90s at 6’3”&200+lbs everybody in my local area recognized who the true romantic gentleMAN was&”to be THE MAN you have to beat THE MAN”is the reality most people have to deal with!!
      That was said alot in the mid-late ’80s!Then I had more than enough muscle/frame/power to get the job done in the 90s!A 6’3” man going nuclear is the right way to peacefuly handle situations as mathew broderic’s MANOWARgames,greenPEACE&DETI have always said too!!


  7. feeriker says:

    “Remember while the insistence was that gay marriage would have no impact on straight marriages, at the same time the feminist advocates for it were very hopeful that gay marriage would end up importing gay norms about how to relate where there aren’t “sex norms” would be imported into straight marriages.”

    This is why so many women find the gay lifestyle attractive, even if they don’t identify as gay themselves. Gay relationships give an appearance of egalitarianism that haven’t traditionally characterized hetero relationships, which is why women find them less threatening and thus more viscerally appealing.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Many gay men are more attractive as husbands for women, too, apart from the sex/siring part — and this is also why a number of gay men actually manage to marry a woman (or at least in the past did so).

      Gay men are seen as perfect because they (1) are often more feminine interiorly while retaining external masculinity like size and strength — which makes them satisfy both companionship needs and non-sexual physical ones (strength and size-related) very well while (2) not being interested at all in sex, so no “ulterior motives” to worry about, freeing her up to treat them like girlfriends-with-penises as she chases alphas (and compares notes with her gay besties about how hot the alphas are). And, gay men are almost all very vocal advocates of feminism and female empowerment — nothing makes most gay men happier than seeing straight men “get theirs” from straight women, so supporting feminism is a no-brainer for most gay men just as supporting gay rights is a no-brainer for feminist women: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for both of them, straight guys are the enemy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        In the past the term “fag hag” was a derogatory label for a woman who preferred platonic relationships with gay men to romantic ones with hetero men. Not only do you not hear the term used anymore, but most women today wouldn’t consider it to be insulting at all even if it were used to describe them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Joe2 says:

        I knew a young woman (recent college grad) who liked to dance and quite frequently she went to a popular downtown dance venue / club.

        She expressed displeasure with the club because the young men there weren’t good dancers, she experienced some groping and was constantly being asked for her phone number, a date, etc.

        She decided to go to a gay bar where they had dancing and something called a “lights out” dance. She said that she was very pleased there; the men acted like gentlemen, were much better dancers, never got asked for her phone number and there was no groping.

        To her, the gay men there were perfect. Regarding groping, there may have been groping during the “lights out” dance, just that she wasn’t the recipient. LOL

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        To her, the gay men there were perfect.

        Until she wants to be taken with rough sex. Then it’s to the biker bar on the other side of town, or a frat party back at her old school, or the upscale wine bar where the “suits” hang out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Nova is right effiminate elites hate men,especialy FEMINAZIST sodomite elites which make up the vast majority of elites!Why do men support these same man-hating&god-hating elites who censor the GREATBOOKSFORMENtm at churches,schools&the so-called MANosphere!?MANOWAR romantic peace ballads beat any modern gay elite music period!!!Also anybody want to talk about the goodMANGINAproject that elites love?”Their having the conversation other god-hating sodomite elites are not having”!They also say evo-psyche is dabomb!!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Scott says:

    When I was facilitating the domestic violence batterers intervention groups, there was this handout that always struck me weird.

    I’d have to really think about how to paraphrase it, because it was like 17 years ago when I was doing that.

    Basically, it was about egalitarian relationships and how the culture encourages unhealthy, enmeshed co-dependent stuff. Song’s that express sentiments like “I can’t live without you” and how my life was totally meaningless and incomplete before you came along, etc.

    And that part actually kind of made sense to me.

    But what it offered instead was so jilted and contrived. It was like

    “Wouldn’t it be great if there were romance songs that said how great it is to be in a relationship with someone based on mutual respect for each others boundaries and how well we communicate. Songs that express what it is like to meet each other halfway, compromise, meet each others needs in a healthy way!”

    Yeah. Those would be some creepy songs.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      I’m glad I met you, but not TOO glad.
      You seem really nice and I like the way you express yourself without being too clingy or obsequious
      Sometimes I want to have sex and you don’t and that’s OK
      We can talk about our different sex drives and come to an amicable agreement
      It’s cool that you are in my life, but I could be totally happy without you also
      And that doesn’t mean anything bad or weird or anything.


      Healthy boundaries, good communication and mutual respect
      Yeah, yeah, yeah. I’d call you baby, but that is a condescending term no matter how I meant it
      Lets go talk about our feelings!

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Women are never happy.

      those guys who kicked them around and brought up on domestic battery charges are the same guys they picked for fun and hot sex and partying and getting high. Then she divorces him and marries a beta guy, and complains about how boring he is, and how she wishes she could get kicked around again.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Women are capable of being happy and content; even with the same flawed and imperfect male in her bed every night. It can be done. it has been done.

        What we have now is the direct result of what we have trained our women to be. I am reminded of a quote from Charlotte Lucas in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice:

        “‘I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins’s character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.’”

        I think this was the mindset of a lot of women before the first wave of feminism that was cut short by the Great Depression and WWII. The writing of female authors in the 1940s reveals that no small number of women -white, liberal women- were a little miffed by the world interrupting the great rising Phoenix of women’s unrestrained liberation and freedom. Women understood what patriarchy afforded them and they fell in line, happily. Except the UMC white women, of course.

        Women are far more pragmatic than their wild display of the last 70 years might indicate. Conflating liberty and licentiousness is what has caused the crazed out of control stuff you see before you now.

        As much as I love and gush over my own husband, he is far and away more of a romantic than I am. Grand romantic gestures? He runs circles around me. What we both are, however, are very chill people who don’t require a lot to be happy.

        Nova talked at length about the media and social media culture that has ruined women’s ability to have measured expectations of life.

        That is what ails women. They want excitement, and certain types of men do provide more excitement than others, even if they are a bad bet long term.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Yeah but it’s a pretty cool song though

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “As much as I love and gush over my own husband, he is far and away more of a romantic than I am. Grand romantic gestures? He runs circles around me. What we both are, however, are very chill people who don’t require a lot to be happy.”

        Same here.
        And though we might be outliers, I don’t think this is outlier stuff.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        By that I mean, I’m in agreement that a great deal of discontent is the result of social conditioning, not a de facto natural state of affairs.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Last month a little plaque arrived in the mail:
        “It Doesn’t Matter Where You Are In Life, It’s Who You Have Beside You!”
        (Mike’s gift, no occasion)

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:


        Yeah. Charlotte says that in Pride and Prejudice because she was 27, which was tantamount to being a never-married 40 year old woman today. She says that because she’s desperate and panicked, and needs to get married right away.

        She’s not “happy”. She’s not “content”. She’s getting a man with some money. She was also damn lucky. But she was NOT “happy”. She was RELIEVED.

        Just what a husband wants to be – “relief”. Yeah, I sure want to be “the Hail Mary”, the last resort, the backup plan for the backup plan.

        Tip: If you want men to put it all on the line, best not compare them to Mr. Collins.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Women understood what patriarchy afforded them and they fell in line, happily. Except the UMC white women, of course.”

        “Women are far more pragmatic than their wild display of the last 70 years might indicate. Conflating liberty and licentiousness is what has caused the crazed out of control stuff you see before you now.”

        No, women did not fall in line happily. They put their heads down, held their noses, gritted their teeth, bit the bullet, and did what they had to do. They married men they did not want, did not love, and CERTAINLY did not want to have sex with, and went ahead and had sex with them. And hated Every. Single. Minute. of it. And that’s how we got the 1960s Sexual Revolution – because women hated being tethered to unattractive men.

        Yeah, women are more pragmatic… in figuring out ways to unmoor themselves from unattractive men, get their own money, and share the most attractive men. They figured out what was best for themselves. Not even what was best for their own children – THEMSELVES.

        Please remember that not every marriage looks like you and Sam, Mychael and Scott, and Liz and Mike. For every one of those, there are 10,000 deti and mrs. deti.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:


        See my reply to Scott. I do not believe women universally hated being with their husband.

        The sexual revolution was about a lot of things, sex roles among them, as well as the casting off of restraint on matters of sexual intimacy. But I don’t think it was driven by women hating sex with their husbands.

        At least not in the way you characterized it. I can accept that there certainly things about our life, family and marriage that are outliers. We hear it often enough in real life. But we are not snowflakes.

        I happen to know women who struggle intimately with their husbands, and women who are pretty crazy about their husbands.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Yeah, women are more pragmatic… in figuring out ways to unmoor themselves from unattractive men, get their own money, and share the most attractive men. They figured out what was best for themselves.”

        This is undoubtedly true, in terms of describing what happened. It has to be remembered that the fathers and brothers were in favor as well, for the most part — I mean in the social class that has the power to change things, not the classes that have to react to changes that are socially imposed on them.

        In part this arises from the inherent tendency in a civilization that is itself based on individual liberty, once that liberty becomes construed as the removal of prior constraints on individual behavior. Women wanted in on that, too — at least the women who had the economic comfort to have the luxury to desire such, coupled with the power (together with the men they influenced) to make it so, culturally. Feminism resulted from that. You can’t have patriarchy AND individual liberty — at least not in the long-term, because women will want in on the individual liberty piece and they will get it because that individual liberty has by then become the dominant social value.

        The West in general and the US in particular thought it could kind of have both, and for a while it did have both, as long as the liberty aspects remained somewhat socially constrained and sexuality remained under belts and suspenders style restrictions. But what was not realized is that this was possible only as a transition stage, in an era when the pace of social change was relatively moderate (compared to today), such that there could be an extended period of “intermediate state”, which featured some elements of the “old” system (patriarchy) and some elements of the “new” one (extreme individualist liberty).

        People thought they could continue that, but it was inherently unstable, because the “new” element was not equally distributed, and that creates a good amount of discontent among the crowd that is dispossessed of that element and is at the same time at the level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to have the ability to focus on rectifying the disparity. It was a matter of time until feminism became what it became. It was more or less inevitable once we cast our lot with liberty as a primary social value.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:


        people also forget that patriarchy put hard limits on men too. Headship is hard. He carries all that weight on his shoulders. Everything that happens in his home is his responsibility. He’s accountable to the men in his family and community for everything that happens in his home. He has to teach, train, protect, provide. He has to pay for it all. He has to be ready at a moment’s notice to lay his life down for the people in his home. He’s expected to be chivalrous and help women in need.

        He can eschew all this. He can be a Rhett Butler if he wants. But then he’s excluded from polite society. Oh, he can make his money and live a libertine lifestyle. He can deflower girls and have sex with prostitutes and otherwise be irresponsible. But he is denied respect, which is men’s primary currency with each other. The Rhett Butlers of the patriarchy world are pushed to patriarchal society’s margins. They are not respected. They are not virtuous and have no honor.

        You are NOT to cheat on your wife. But if you do, you don’t get to divorce your wife. And you do not bring shame on her or your family. You don’t knock your mistress up. You don’t bring any diseases home. You don’t divert too much family money away. You can cheat, but you had better not make it a scandal, because if you do, she can divorce you and you’ll support her forever.

        Most women didn’t divorce over the cheating; they divorced over the public scandal and shame. She’s not mad you had sex with another woman. She’s mad that you weren’t smart enough to keep it quiet. She’s mad that you shamed her with the other clucking chickens in the kaffeeklaatsch. She’s mad that the clucking chickens now sh!ttalk her and laugh at her behind her back.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. elspeth says:

    “Yeah but it’s a pretty cool song though…”

    LOL. It’s not my idea of ideal Scott, believe me. I feel beyond blessed every time I look at my husband. I asked him the other day, “How the heck did I end up with you?” He finds that line of thinking absurd, and echoes it right back at me. That would make an actual, really, super cool song!

    But historically, that’s not how it was done. We’ve ruined the opportunity for many people to find what you and I were fortunate enough to find. I actually think there were more of us way back when than many people care to admit. We’ve moved away from morally contextualized romance 😉 , which is the thing that would make for far more happy, satisfying marriages.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. lastmod says:

    I am a solid, decent dancer. All women think and believe they are “great dancers”
    All of them. I’ve met a few that are excellent, a few that are okay. Most white girls only know how to twerk or whatever. The black gals I’ve danced with over the years know what’s up, many can dance the classic steps, and well.

    At the dances I go to (Soul / Northern Soul) the scene is mostly men. Straight men. Encouraging environment (everyone wants to learn the steps, how to get better with no pressure of having to perform). The music. We come for the music. The best dance music in the world came out of the USA especially in the 1960’s.

    The few women there are with a their boyfriend OR stand around waiting for the hottest guy to ask them to dance. All of them. They will ignore, nuclear reject or give that RFB look the whole time. Why go out to a dance like this when you are going to stand there and look angry the whole time?

    Besides, with this classic Soul, and R&B it is impossible to feel sad, or be angry. If you do? Or look this way…no one will speak to you. You don’t belong.

    I think Northern Soul and that scene attracted men because they wanted to get good at something without female approval, or fear of being looked at for trying. Soul music is forgiving because the message is love. Todays modern club music fits the world we live in today.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. lastmod says:

    “Hide Nor Hair” Earl Grant (1965). A staple in the soul scene today. This song was never a hit. Danced to this in the UK where the scene is much bigger than the USA. Americans like only filthy, violent hip-hop today or twerk-pop. The lost art of dancing for its sake is a wonderful thing. Keeps me in shape and I was encouraged and helped when I really began to get technical on the steps over 15 years ago. A big reason why I went to the UK (Manchester) was to go to all nite dances with Northern SOul / Soul / classic R&B music)

    Liked by 3 people

  12. ray says:

    Yes, sex and the sexual revolution are important in understanding the feminist takeover of the anglosphere, and of much of the West.

    But this reduces the issue to one simple material force, the desire of the female herd to maximize its reproductive potential by access to as many males as possible, via unrestricted sexuality.

    It is not merely unrestricted sexuality at the heart of female error. If that were so, we would see gynocentric societies with burgeoning birth rates . . . life-affirming societies. Instead, we see barren and spiritually vacant societies. Feminism — both the political system and the religion of much of the West — is a culture of death. Not of expanding procreativity, and of life. It slaughters and it glories in blood.

    The urge of the woman in Eden is the urge of women in the modern West: This is not a drive of sex, per se, but of obsession to destroy masculinity itself, to show female equality with (domination over) God’s images and agents on Earth, men. The controlling urge of American women, for example, is not one of sex, but one of usurpation, rebellion, rage and destruction. You are still outside the Gates of Eden, and for the same reasons as at the beginning, too.

    The tsah-rah spirit that manifested in Eve is not primarily a spirit, an entity, of sexual license and expression. It is specifically a feminine spirit of vexation — a desire to thwart, to overthrow, to ruin, to usurp, to rebel in the thirst for dominating power. It is a spirit of resentment and death, not a spirit of sex and life. Your nations were not locked down (= imprisonment of the primary masculine value of freedom) until they were firmly under the control of the feminine herd, collectivized women.

    Cultural restrictions against female sexual license do not annul this spirit of vexation, but only blunt it, hold it in check. This spirit is perennial and will continue to dominate the Earth until God himself checks-in for permanent residence. In the interim it is essential for individual men and women to resist this spirit, which dominates our times and our nations. In this way we play an important role in bringing about the King’s Millennium, by forcing this spirit into the light of truth, and thus into expeditious bondage.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Red Pill Apostle says:

    So basically, you are stating that feminism is an inversion of God’s intended hierarchy at creation. As such, feral female sexuality is then one of the many tools that feminism applies to accomplish the goal. Not lost in this is are the parallels of feminism to Satan’s temptation of Eve in the garden. The theme has been done throughout history under different labels. Societies labeled matriarchal at any point in history, the concept of chivalry in Europe and now feminism in the modern west. None of them end well and all cause strife.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. Pingback: Prime Directive Vision | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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