The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Enforced Polygamy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times Magazine:

Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy

He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?

By Nellie Bowles
May 18, 2018

… Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader. The messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk (clean your room, stand up straight) to the more retrograde and political (a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men’s competence; the notion of white privilege is a farce). He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.

The most denounced line:

“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”

In contrast, when feminists invite in Muslims & Africans and we wind up with “enforced polygamy,” will it be because the Establishment’s highest priority was to show up that awful Jordan Peterson, and then things just got out of hand due to our culture’s current excesses of politically correct ignorance and white-on-white hate?

Or will it be because feminists really want polygamous marriage to a Big Man?

There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy. Under polygamy, there are plenty of quality husbands to go around, so polygamous women don’t have to diet as much as Melania Trump does under serial monogamy.

For example, from The South African:

Just how many wives does Jacob Zuma have, and who are they?

Zuma had perfected wife capture long before he’d mastered state capture

By Tom Head – 2017-10-05

Here is former South African president Jacob Zuma and a number of his First Ladies, none of whom look like they will pass up a nice big slice of their hubby’s birthday cake:

 
Hide 175 CommentsLeave a Comment
175 Comments to "Enforced Polygamy"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. AndrewR says:

    Hhhhhhhhhhhhhwyte sharia now!

    Read More
    • Agree: 27 year old
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation’s Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It’s the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that’s about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it’s all just being used for other people’s benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Does everything repeat?
     
    As Marx said, first time tragedy, second time farce.

    But with Bly and Peterson, it seems to be the other way around. Bly had men go out in the forest and bang drums to feel more manly. Seems rather cartoonish.

    I used to confuse Robert Bly with Robert W Bly. Both were in the writing instruction business. But Robert W. was more workaday, concentrating on business correspondence and presentations. In other words, doing a man's job. With less noise.
    , @J.Ross
    Iron John advocated drum circles and walked back the proud anti-masculinity thing that started in the seventies. Bly rejected the Promise Keepers, a comparable and contemporaneous but Christian phenomenon, for trying to roll back too much of feminism. Bly is an academic whose training is in poetry.
    , @Stan Adams
    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:
    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    "You're taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?"
    , @Paleo Liberal
    My mother was a friend of the late Carol Bly, Robert Bly's ex-wife, for about 60 years. I remember meeting her and her son not long before she died. She was rather dismissive of the Iron John men's movement thing, but had some fond memories of their time together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Bly

    My mother told me that when Robert and Carol were engaged, my father tried to talk Carol out of marrying Robert. As in "don't marry that Harvard poet". Interesting, because at the time one of my father's best friends was a poet he knew from Columbia, Allen Ginsberg. My father was very fond of Allen, but considered Allen to be stark raving bonkers. My father thought poets and writers were interesting people to hang out with, but not someone to actually marry. Another of my father's friends, Joan Vollmer, had already been killed by her writer husband, William Burroughs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer

    I read Iron John. Interesting in a sociological sense, but not impressive writing at all. Many in my family thought Carol Bly to be a far better writer than Robert Bly, but she never got famous.
    , @Dave from Oz

    @2 - Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation’s Jordan Peterson, I think.
     
    Holy shit! If I could upvote you, dude, I would do so. This is dead-on accurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims. What Muslims really have is enforced monogamy and patriarchy, with an allowance for limited polygamy. Polygamy is rare when you have enforced monogamy and patriarchy.

    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Correct. It's similar to the "bare branches" phenomenon in China -- overall numerical disparity notwithstanding, the situation in China isn't as bad as in the West, the former being spared the obesity epidemic and anarchic, degenerate social mores that create a narrowing minority of winners.
    , @James N. Kennett

    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims.
    ...
    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

     

    It is common enough in urban Britain that everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as "pleasure wives" by Muslim men, often when the latter are working away from home. The local Sharia courts often hear petitions from convert women for divorce on the grounds of abandonment (i.e. hubby has gone home to his principal wife).

    Needless to say, the authorities turn a blind eye to offences of bigamy, as well as those defined by the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, if the perpetrator is Muslim.

    I suggest that Muslims in the West have just as much fornication and adultery as their host societies, but religious and social pressure prevents Muslim men from doing these things with their own women: so they use infidel women instead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Altai says:

    Maybe we need a paradigm shift… (I know I’m going to internet hell)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG5FB-cVv0I
    , @BenKenobi
    Sam Hyde is a saint!
    , @Daniel Chieh
    He can't keep getting away with this!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Interestingly, in the Twin Cities underground polygamy is much more of a problem among the Hmong than among the Mohammedan Somalis. That guy who shot up the hunters across the river in Wisconsin had a second, “cultural” wife in St Paul.

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @njguy73
    From the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, considered the best reference work ever written:

    The Somali are a fighting race and all go armed with spear, shield and short sword (and guns when they can get them). During the rains incessant intertribal lootings of cattle take place. Among certain tribes those who have killed a man have the right to wear an ostrich-feather in their hair. They are great talkers, keenly sensitive to ridicule, and quick-tempered. Women hold a degraded position among the Somali (wives being often looted with sheep), doing most of the hard work. The Somali love display; they are inordinately vain and avaricious; but they make loyal and trustworthy soldiers and are generally bright and intelligent.

    The Somali have very little political or social cohesion, and are divided into a multiplicity of rers or fakidas (tribes, clans). Three main divisions, however, have been clearly determined, and these are important both on political and ethnical grounds.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Somaliland
    , @Pericles

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

     

    Don't cringe and bow before the invaders.
    , @anon
    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Buzz Mohawk
    Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation's Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It's the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that's about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it's all just being used for other people's benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    Does everything repeat?

    As Marx said, first time tragedy, second time farce.

    But with Bly and Peterson, it seems to be the other way around. Bly had men go out in the forest and bang drums to feel more manly. Seems rather cartoonish.

    I used to confuse Robert Bly with Robert W Bly. Both were in the writing instruction business. But Robert W. was more workaday, concentrating on business correspondence and presentations. In other words, doing a man’s job. With less noise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Bly had men go out in the forest and bang drums to feel more manly.
     
    Sounds an awful lot like what was at least one of the signature antics of a certain individual who at least for a time had been closely aligned with and promoted by "Alt-Right leader" Richard Spencer. Perhaps someone here is familiar with the individual I am referring-to, as I cannot recall his name. He is infamous for an Internet posting he made to some forum in which he boasted of how easy it is for him to "fu---k" (i.e., bugger, in the literal, sexual sense of the word) as many carnally appealing men as he could possibly desire and how many such tender creatures ("with daddy issues", he touchingly added) he had so conferred his wholesome affections upon. The "antics" I referred-to of this individual involved a whole neo-pagan shtick, the rituals of which were said to have included groups of men, purportedly bringing children along as well, romping around naked in the forest.

    Perhaps such credentials were seen as a feature and not a bug by the Nazi-LARPing Spencer who had promoted the proudly buggering neo-pagan as an exemplar of healthy masculinity for young men. In fairness, it must also be noted that the aforementioned neo-Pagan Sodomite (the one whose name I cannot recall) is also quoted as having made the statement that young men who find themselves erotically attracted to the same sex would do well, before embracing a homosexual identity and lifestyle, to first honestly rule-out the possibility of embracing heterosexuality. That, certainly, would have been to his credit.

    Let me add here (and I will bring this back to the topic of the NYT article, I promise) my own contention that even when a same-sex-attracted individual is either unwilling or unable to change his orientation, it does not mean that a life of the gruesome, inordinately disease-promoting, demeaning act of buggery must be his lot. At the very least, non-penetrative alternatives such as the egalitarian FROT* are FAR safer, painless and offer a number of other distinct advantages over using the ano-rectal orifice for a purpose it clearly could hardly be more ill-suited for. Moreover, as long as the alternative is either any kind of homosexual behavior or fornication or adultery of any kind, then celibacy, at least as an ideal to strive toward, should never be dismissed lightly.

    Note how individuals such as the author of the NYT piece on Peterson apparently see absolutely no contradiction between claiming egalitarianism as perhaps their single most fundamental and sacred principle, on one hand and incessantly championing buggery, on the other. (Is there any sex act less egalitarian than ano-rectal buggery?) Hardly surprising, though, when one considers all the other glaring contradictions, hypocrisies and double-standards of this bunch-- the great arbiters of what constitutes "OK" thought.

    *See man2manalliance DOT org but note graphic adult content.

    Incidentally, is Jordan Peterson on record as having expressed any views on homosexuality? A web search I did not long ago did not reveal anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Whiskey says: • Website

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Sorry, I wrote my previous comment before I read yours - reading upwards today for some reason.

    I've been enjoying your comments lately. BTW, that Band on the Run, though great, has gotten too familiar, so I would suggest these two Wings songs for the evening:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qnRvJZfh1c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEil2e_bUvg

    Little known tidbit, for your edification - this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!
    , @istevefan

    White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male
     
    Is it women, or just white women?

    Are Japanese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Japanese male?

    Are Chinese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Chinese male?

    Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?

    Are Iraqi women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Iraqi male?

    etc., etc.
    , @27 year old

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.
     
    Just because women don't like you doesn't mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie's DMs, you guys could really help eachother out
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT The separate foreign ministry of each EU government has just inked some kind of massive multi-lateral new deal with many African governments.
    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.

    https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Documents/pr180978a.pdf

    CONSCIOUS of the driving force of the Rabat Process in identifying common political priorities for migration and asylum issues between Africa and Europe, and its contribution to the formulation and
    implementation of migration strategies;

    3. Increased attention to the fight against xenophobia, racism and discrimination: the
    partners will undertake efforts to combat these phenomena, and to promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;
     
    If they know, ahead of time, that they're going to have to highlight positive contributions in order to achieve "balance" then it sounds like they already know what the real contributions will be.

    It's as close as we're ever going to get to an actual admission.
    , @Anonymous

    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.
     
    Nice catch.
    , @istevefan
    I think Sailer has brought this up before that about 6 million American blacks migrated North during the early 20th century. And he pointed out how those 6 million blacks totally transformed several major Northern cities such as Detroit.

    Someone in Europe has to absorb this lesson of history. If 6 million blacks can transform most of our Northern cities, what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe's cities?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation's Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It's the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that's about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it's all just being used for other people's benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    Iron John advocated drum circles and walked back the proud anti-masculinity thing that started in the seventies. Bly rejected the Promise Keepers, a comparable and contemporaneous but Christian phenomenon, for trying to roll back too much of feminism. Bly is an academic whose training is in poetry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. “By Nellie Bowles”

    Typical. No group on earth wants to stick it to White men more than university educated Gentile, Anglo women. Even Jews and gays can’t beat “our” ladies.

    Read More
    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I! AM! WHISKEY!
    , @Pericles
    She was awarded a first-class degree in nagging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. They’re so mendacious and socially corrosive that I can’t help enjoying them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Their impersonations of Peterson's irritating Canadian accent are pretty funny, and I'm no worshipper of his, but the intellectual dishonesty they were displaying towards Peterson's arguments is rather disgusting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Altai
    Maybe we need a paradigm shift... (I know I'm going to internet hell)

    https://memes4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sam+hyde+modern+nostradamus+2013_05c6d2_6301337.jpg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I would really like to see Steve devote a column to the issue of late 60s free love cults. I think they can shed some light on where we are going with our culture of pronounced sexual tolerance.

    My understanding is that, for example, the Father Yod cult started off as a free love thing, and within about three years, Father Yod had 14 wives. What this says to me is that so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time. Presumably by this point some of the other men must have felt that it was time to leave. Unless you are guaranteed at least 1 wife, what is the point of endorsing a culture of free love?

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy. But there was also large communities of celibate priests and nuns. And there was a much harsher policing of homosexual relations.

    I am curious what this model says about where we should go from here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is very good.
    https://dangerousminds.net/comments/father_yods_flower-powered_ego_trips_and_the_utopian_wet_dreams_of_the_sour
    , @Almost Missouri

    "so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time."
     
    Free Love-ism is just a transitory stage on the way to Big Man-ism, here and elsewhere.

    https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/restorationquarterly/vol42/iss1/3/
    , @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Zuma had perfected wife capture long before he’d mastered state capture

    All he wanna do is Zuma Zum Zum Zum and a Boom Boom

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Tipsy says:

    Long ago, in 1993, William Tucker wrote an apologia for monogamy, called “Monogamy and its Discontents”. If you look around, you can still find the odd copy of it.

    Tucker concludes:

    Family values are basically the belief that monogamy is the most peaceful and progressive way of organizing a human society. Dislike and distaste for anything that challenges the monogamous contract – easy divorce, widespread pornography, legalized prostitution, out-of-wedlock child bearing, blatant homosexuality, [+ pervasive hypergamy, promiscuity, polygamy, gender disphoria, etc. ed.]-are not just narrow or prudish concerns. They come from an intelligent recognition that the monogamous contract is a fragile institution that can easily unravel if dissaffections become too widespread.

    What is likely to happen if we abandon these values? People will go on reproducing, you can be sure of that. But families won’t be formed (“litters” might be a more appropriate term). And the human beings that are produced in these litters will not be quite the same either. If marriage is a compromise between men and women, then the breakdown of monogamy can only let loose the natural egocentrisms of both.

    It is probably not too alarmist to note that societies that have been unable to establish monogamy have also been unable to create working democracies or widely distributed wealth. No society that domesticates too few men can have a stable social order. People who are incapable of monogamy are probably incapable of many other things as well.

    As a basically limiting human compact, monogamous marriage is bound to produce its peculiar difficulties. As with any compromise, each individual can argue based on present or previous deprivation, real or imagined-that he or she should not be bound by the rules.

    Yet it should also be clear that, beyond the personal dissatisfactions we all may feel, each of us also retains a permanent, private stake in sustaining a system that creates a peaceful social order and offers to everyone a reasonable chance of achieving personal happiness. If monogamy makes complex demands on human beings, it also offers unique and complex rewards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    William Tucker was real good.
    , @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Another work worth consulting about the importance of monogamy is J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15707651-sex-and-culture
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. BenKenobi says:
    @Altai
    Maybe we need a paradigm shift... (I know I'm going to internet hell)

    https://memes4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sam+hyde+modern+nostradamus+2013_05c6d2_6301337.jpg

    Sam Hyde is a saint!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. L Woods says:
    @Anonymous
    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims. What Muslims really have is enforced monogamy and patriarchy, with an allowance for limited polygamy. Polygamy is rare when you have enforced monogamy and patriarchy.

    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

    Correct. It’s similar to the “bare branches” phenomenon in China — overall numerical disparity notwithstanding, the situation in China isn’t as bad as in the West, the former being spared the obesity epidemic and anarchic, degenerate social mores that create a narrowing minority of winners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    No obesity, but they are gaining a few extra lb. over there too. That white rice, with it's high glycemic index, is causing diabetes for lots of Chinese people who have memories of not getting enough (worse than potatoes as far as turning into sugar fast!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Tipsy
    Long ago, in 1993, William Tucker wrote an apologia for monogamy, called "Monogamy and its Discontents". If you look around, you can still find the odd copy of it.

    Tucker concludes:

    Family values are basically the belief that monogamy is the most peaceful and progressive way of organizing a human society. Dislike and distaste for anything that challenges the monogamous contract - easy divorce, widespread pornography, legalized prostitution, out-of-wedlock child bearing, blatant homosexuality, [+ pervasive hypergamy, promiscuity, polygamy, gender disphoria, etc. ed.]-are not just narrow or prudish concerns. They come from an intelligent recognition that the monogamous contract is a fragile institution that can easily unravel if dissaffections become too widespread.


    What is likely to happen if we abandon these values? People will go on reproducing, you can be sure of that. But families won't be formed ("litters" might be a more appropriate term). And the human beings that are produced in these litters will not be quite the same either. If marriage is a compromise between men and women, then the breakdown of monogamy can only let loose the natural egocentrisms of both.

    It is probably not too alarmist to note that societies that have been unable to establish monogamy have also been unable to create working democracies or widely distributed wealth. No society that domesticates too few men can have a stable social order. People who are incapable of monogamy are probably incapable of many other things as well.

    As a basically limiting human compact, monogamous marriage is bound to produce its peculiar difficulties. As with any compromise, each individual can argue based on present or previous deprivation, real or imagined-that he or she should not be bound by the rules.

    Yet it should also be clear that, beyond the personal dissatisfactions we all may feel, each of us also retains a permanent, private stake in sustaining a system that creates a peaceful social order and offers to everyone a reasonable chance of achieving personal happiness. If monogamy makes complex demands on human beings, it also offers unique and complex rewards.
     

    William Tucker was real good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Yes, Tucker was fantastic in his style and clarity of thought. He was writing frequently around the time period I discovered the younger Steve Sailer in National Review. After a long interval I managed to rediscover you, Steve. But whatever happened to William Tucker?
    , @Tipsy
    William Tucker and Joe Sobran are unsung heros.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Tony Maloney
    I would really like to see Steve devote a column to the issue of late 60s free love cults. I think they can shed some light on where we are going with our culture of pronounced sexual tolerance.

    My understanding is that, for example, the Father Yod cult started off as a free love thing, and within about three years, Father Yod had 14 wives. What this says to me is that so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time. Presumably by this point some of the other men must have felt that it was time to leave. Unless you are guaranteed at least 1 wife, what is the point of endorsing a culture of free love?

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy. But there was also large communities of celibate priests and nuns. And there was a much harsher policing of homosexual relations.

    I am curious what this model says about where we should go from here.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    OT The separate foreign ministry of each EU government has just inked some kind of massive multi-lateral new deal with many African governments.
    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.

    https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Documents/pr180978a.pdf

    CONSCIOUS of the driving force of the Rabat Process in identifying common political priorities for migration and asylum issues between Africa and Europe, and its contribution to the formulation and
    implementation of migration strategies;
     

    3. Increased attention to the fight against xenophobia, racism and discrimination: the
    partners will undertake efforts to combat these phenomena, and to promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;
     

    promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;

    If they know, ahead of time, that they’re going to have to highlight positive contributions in order to achieve “balance” then it sounds like they already know what the real contributions will be.

    It’s as close as we’re ever going to get to an actual admission.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy. Under polygamy, there are plenty of quality husbands to go around, so women don’t have to diet as much as Melania Trump does under serial monogamy.

    There’s no such thing as “serial monogamy”. The term “serial monogamy” is a rhetorical sleight of hand that was conjured up to conceal the decline of monogamy. Serial monogamy is polygyny. It’s not like married couples swapping wives or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The correct term is "serial polygyny."

    For some reason, Steve and Heartiste stubbornly avoid employing it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    The critics are right in that monogamy requires patriarchy, insofar as patriarchy is defined as a set of policies, institutions, mores, values, norms, etc. which make men have higher status than women. There is no monogamy otherwise. When each man has higher status than women, then monogamy is viable.

    At this point, it’s inconceivable how patriarchy could be reintroduced endogenously in the West barring some major revolution or upheaval. So until then or until some exogenous imposition, it’s unlikely we will have monogamy, with all that entails.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    And the real, um, bitch, of it is, that women would all be much happier in a system where each man was higher status than women -- because they could all land a high status man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Spode recommends Extension du domaine de la lutte by M. Houellebecq, particularly part 2, chapter 10, which is set in a provincial French nightclub on New Year’s Eve.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Spode, Houellebecq is unquestionably the diagnostician of nearly all of the pathologies of the present age. In “Submission” he rightly saw polygamy as the selling point for the coming age of Islam (and slyly predicted its discontents as well).

    I think it’s arguable that our society has been maneuvered into polygamy for at least a generation. Sexual license, no-fault divorce, ridicule of religion, feminism—these have all played a role early on. The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. Male resentment would predictably erupt into violence.

    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions as unqualifiedly superior. Hence the social project of the last decade. It’s only a matter of time before a person who has NOT been in a homosexual union is decried as a bigot.

    Once enough young men have been brought to heel in this way, it’ll be safe for societal elites to effect that tricky “do as I say, not as I do” thing they do, maybe under some kind of “humanitarian” alibi, and re-institute polygamy as a caste prerogative.

    Well, at least it would make a good plot for a Houellebecqian novel.
    , @27 year old

    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.
     
    Don't be so hard on yourself, that's a much better comment than what Whiskey usually posts.
    , @J.Ross
    Single motherhood is an alarmingly strong predictor of crime and major life problems.
    , @MBlanc46
    Well said, sir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy

    OK now, see, that’s gonna be a problem for me. Immigration Moratorium Now!

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    It was depressing as hell to see on Sister Wives how the established wives just gave up on life and gained weight like they were hoping to get a Cheesey Poofs endorsement. This sounds sexist but it's generally true: a happy person whose life is going somewhere is probably in shape. I say that as an unhappy person whose life is a zoo-train continually ensuring that my kitchen still exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. njguy73 says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Interestingly, in the Twin Cities underground polygamy is much more of a problem among the Hmong than among the Mohammedan Somalis. That guy who shot up the hunters across the river in Wisconsin had a second, "cultural" wife in St Paul.

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

    From the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, considered the best reference work ever written:

    The Somali are a fighting race and all go armed with spear, shield and short sword (and guns when they can get them). During the rains incessant intertribal lootings of cattle take place. Among certain tribes those who have killed a man have the right to wear an ostrich-feather in their hair. They are great talkers, keenly sensitive to ridicule, and quick-tempered. Women hold a degraded position among the Somali (wives being often looted with sheep), doing most of the hard work. The Somali love display; they are inordinately vain and avaricious; but they make loyal and trustworthy soldiers and are generally bright and intelligent.

    The Somali have very little political or social cohesion, and are divided into a multiplicity of rers or fakidas (tribes, clans). Three main divisions, however, have been clearly determined, and these are important both on political and ethnical grounds.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Somaliland

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I thought they had a 65 median IQ...
    , @Lot
    And in conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.
    , @James N. Kennett
    The 1911 Britannica is a treasure trove of suppressed knowledge.

    As is the 1917 Catholic Encyclopaedia - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @L Woods
    Correct. It's similar to the "bare branches" phenomenon in China -- overall numerical disparity notwithstanding, the situation in China isn't as bad as in the West, the former being spared the obesity epidemic and anarchic, degenerate social mores that create a narrowing minority of winners.

    No obesity, but they are gaining a few extra lb. over there too. That white rice, with it’s high glycemic index, is causing diabetes for lots of Chinese people who have memories of not getting enough (worse than potatoes as far as turning into sugar fast!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Cagey Beast
    "By Nellie Bowles"

    Typical. No group on earth wants to stick it to White men more than university educated Gentile, Anglo women. Even Jews and gays can't beat "our" ladies.

    I! AM! WHISKEY!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    I! AM! WHISKEY! Hear me roar.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    No! I! AM! WHISKEY!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Whiskey
    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.

    Sorry, I wrote my previous comment before I read yours – reading upwards today for some reason.

    I’ve been enjoying your comments lately. BTW, that Band on the Run, though great, has gotten too familiar, so I would suggest these two Wings songs for the evening:

    Little known tidbit, for your edification – this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip

    Little known tidbit, for your edification – this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!
     
    Yeah, the Quarrymen were pretty good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous[297] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    OT The separate foreign ministry of each EU government has just inked some kind of massive multi-lateral new deal with many African governments.
    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.

    https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Documents/pr180978a.pdf

    CONSCIOUS of the driving force of the Rabat Process in identifying common political priorities for migration and asylum issues between Africa and Europe, and its contribution to the formulation and
    implementation of migration strategies;
     

    3. Increased attention to the fight against xenophobia, racism and discrimination: the
    partners will undertake efforts to combat these phenomena, and to promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;
     

    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.

    Nice catch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Svigor says:

    The one on the far left looks like the Queen of Zamunda.

    when feminists invite in Muslims & Africans and we wind up with “enforced polygamy,” will it be because the Establishment’s highest priority was to show up that awful Jordan Peterson, and then things just got out of hand

    Made me laugh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy
     
    OK now, see, that's gonna be a problem for me. Immigration Moratorium Now!

    It was depressing as hell to see on Sister Wives how the established wives just gave up on life and gained weight like they were hoping to get a Cheesey Poofs endorsement. This sounds sexist but it’s generally true: a happy person whose life is going somewhere is probably in shape. I say that as an unhappy person whose life is a zoo-train continually ensuring that my kitchen still exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aajj
    Yes. They are miserable. Sitting around waiting for their husband to pay attention to them. Would be better if they got out of that and enjoyed the freedom of choice....choosing to live their lives on their own terms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Altai
    Maybe we need a paradigm shift... (I know I'm going to internet hell)

    https://memes4.fjcdn.com/pictures/Sam+hyde+modern+nostradamus+2013_05c6d2_6301337.jpg

    He can’t keep getting away with this!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. bjondo says:

    Just know the argument is BS when a leader is compared to average guy.

    I know lots of Muslims in US, Europe and in ME. All are monogamous. Strongly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yes, it is a funny irony how today the "polygamous" Muslim is so often more monogamous than the "monogamous" Christian. Indeed, the modern Muslim is often more Christian than the modern "Christian", and more civilized and more cultured than the modern Westerner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. none of whom look like they will pass up a nice big slice of their hubby’s birthday cake

    Yes, but the one to his immediate left, now she is build for lovin. The one next to her looks like her yellow bile cocktail went down hard and the lemon-juice chaser just made things worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    She gets my seal of approval! (If I had to chose)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Anonymous
    The critics are right in that monogamy requires patriarchy, insofar as patriarchy is defined as a set of policies, institutions, mores, values, norms, etc. which make men have higher status than women. There is no monogamy otherwise. When each man has higher status than women, then monogamy is viable.

    At this point, it's inconceivable how patriarchy could be reintroduced endogenously in the West barring some major revolution or upheaval. So until then or until some exogenous imposition, it's unlikely we will have monogamy, with all that entails.

    And the real, um, bitch, of it is, that women would all be much happier in a system where each man was higher status than women — because they could all land a high status man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I think that's the thermo tax on being alive. To get to a higher state requires a bit of sacrifice.
    , @Logan
    they could all land a high status man.

    Not quite. But they could pretty much all "marry up," to a man higher than their own status.

    But there would still be a limited number of high-status men based on the male hierarchy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. ChrisZ says:
    @Steve Sailer
    William Tucker was real good.

    Yes, Tucker was fantastic in his style and clarity of thought. He was writing frequently around the time period I discovered the younger Steve Sailer in National Review. After a long interval I managed to rediscover you, Steve. But whatever happened to William Tucker?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. istevefan says:
    @Whiskey
    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.

    White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male

    Is it women, or just white women?

    Are Japanese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Japanese male?

    Are Chinese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Chinese male?

    Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?

    Are Iraqi women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Iraqi male?

    etc., etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Just White women. They are the freest and have always been so if you believe Tacitus. Women despise male equals and the pill, codon + Western freedom = co tempt.
    , @SteeleyJew
    "Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?"

    YES! Especially their mothers.

    Any beta Jew with half a heart will tell you.
    , @anon
    Why bother replying to whiskey. I think his life long celibacy has damaged his mind. Just because he never got any, I don’t see why he should post his frustrations on the site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. istevefan says:
    @J.Ross
    OT The separate foreign ministry of each EU government has just inked some kind of massive multi-lateral new deal with many African governments.
    tldr, the solution is more immigration, but also coordinated international censorship amd propaganda.

    https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Press%20Releases/Documents/pr180978a.pdf

    CONSCIOUS of the driving force of the Rabat Process in identifying common political priorities for migration and asylum issues between Africa and Europe, and its contribution to the formulation and
    implementation of migration strategies;
     

    3. Increased attention to the fight against xenophobia, racism and discrimination: the
    partners will undertake efforts to combat these phenomena, and to promote a balanced
    narrative on migration and diasporas, based on facts and highlighting their positive
    contribution to the development of societies in countries of origin, transit and destination;
     

    I think Sailer has brought this up before that about 6 million American blacks migrated North during the early 20th century. And he pointed out how those 6 million blacks totally transformed several major Northern cities such as Detroit.

    Someone in Europe has to absorb this lesson of history. If 6 million blacks can transform most of our Northern cities, what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe’s cities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    "what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe’s cities?"

    About the same effect as a hundred nukes!
    , @J.Ross
    When you bring this up to a European they say that it's only in the cities, that the countryside is still pure, and that their countries are still overwhelmingly white. And also remember: prior to this they already swallowed the stuff about American blacks being the way they are merely as a result of the Klan historically dictating how real estate and law enforcement worked.
    Douglas Murray has been destroying the most respectable excuse, that these people are necessary as a future tax base and labor force. We gave already seen that the tendency to just censor and double down is a guaranteed backfire and here they are trying again even as a country as modern and Western as Italy slips from their grasp. I am encouraged by this stupidity.
    , @Dieter Kief
    One of the biggest miracles to me is, that Europeans don't get, that there are serious racial tensions/ problems in the US.
    I d o not get t this. Murray1, Murray2 (the younger Murray) Sailer, Robert Putnam, Sailer, Unz, Sailer, Collier, Sailer (you got it since ages, I know, but I could not resist pointing out the clarity and the density of Steve Sailer's arguments - - they all, all this men should be very well known and praised nd studied closely, together with ann Coulter and Camille Paglia...: BUT...they're fought against as the forces from the dark instead.

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas - the young.... - Murray will rock the 02 stadium at june the 16th, I hope, -maybe that'll make a diference...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. ChrisZ says:
    @Roderick Spode
    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Spode recommends Extension du domaine de la lutte by M. Houellebecq, particularly part 2, chapter 10, which is set in a provincial French nightclub on New Year's Eve.

    Spode, Houellebecq is unquestionably the diagnostician of nearly all of the pathologies of the present age. In “Submission” he rightly saw polygamy as the selling point for the coming age of Islam (and slyly predicted its discontents as well).

    I think it’s arguable that our society has been maneuvered into polygamy for at least a generation. Sexual license, no-fault divorce, ridicule of religion, feminism—these have all played a role early on. The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. Male resentment would predictably erupt into violence.

    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions as unqualifiedly superior. Hence the social project of the last decade. It’s only a matter of time before a person who has NOT been in a homosexual union is decried as a bigot.

    Once enough young men have been brought to heel in this way, it’ll be safe for societal elites to effect that tricky “do as I say, not as I do” thing they do, maybe under some kind of “humanitarian” alibi, and re-institute polygamy as a caste prerogative.

    Well, at least it would make a good plot for a Houellebecqian novel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality

    What about porn, vidya, and professional sports?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. .... The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions"

    You have a point. I'm sure a couple of the young 'gay men' of my children's acquaintance are in fact making a virtue of necessity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Tipsy says:
    @Steve Sailer
    William Tucker was real good.

    William Tucker and Joe Sobran are unsung heros.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Whiskey
    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.

    Just because women don’t like you doesn’t mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie’s DMs, you guys could really help eachother out

    Read More
    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Yes, who but a "loser" could deny the wonderfulness of our precious white women
    , @Whiskey
    If course women are the eternal enemy. Stop White Knighting. Women are the shock troops of gun bans, anti White politics, rapefugees, open borders, prohibituon, the drug war, WWT, World War Gay, colors of benetton, and World WarIncel now I guess since Mary Wollstonecroft. It's Moms Demand Action on the universal White make disarmament act. So every day can be Reginald Denny Day. White dudes are not screaming take my gun. It's all White women. The inevitable hate for men their equal.

    Just noticing. If White women acted like the women of Japan we would have the politics of Japan and it's borders . We have the Liz be cause White women love it like a C W Show.

    When Israel has recent wars where Joe Average has killed some one it's politics drift rightward. During long peace they go left. As predictable AmAnda Palmers love poem to Dhokar Tsarnaev.

    You can learn things when you are past 27.
    , @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Yes, the "eternal enemy" bit is wrong and hyperbole.
    But there really is something "polygamous" (there's probably a better term) to the current cultural milieu of the last 20 years. And while it is worthwhile to look at what women say, we need really only look at what they do.

    When life circumstances permit, i.e. when a woman is sufficiently attractive, has free time, some disposable income, family and/or religious pressure is not constraining her, many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet - continually searching for better partners.
    For all the stupidity of the various Red Pill forums, they are on to something real with the concept of the "cock carousel". I've seen this behaviour in literally all of the age appropriate women in my extended family as well as many of the women I socialized with in college. A decade ago I just thought my family was dysfunctional (my mother's side is Appalachian) but I now realize there are much larger cultural forces at work on young Western women.

    It is foolish to ignore this, even if the people complaining about it are losers.
    , @Stebbing Heuer
    Aaaaand cue the White Knight riding in on his White Stallion to shame the redpiller.

    Every damn time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Roderick Spode
    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Spode recommends Extension du domaine de la lutte by M. Houellebecq, particularly part 2, chapter 10, which is set in a provincial French nightclub on New Year's Eve.

    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Don’t be so hard on yourself, that’s a much better comment than what Whiskey usually posts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    A whore can’t be a whore without a man with whom to whore.

    But life long celibate 90 year old male virgin perverts who’ve been glued to their computers for the last 30 years don’t know it takes a man and a woman to have sex.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. BB753 says:
    @istevefan
    I think Sailer has brought this up before that about 6 million American blacks migrated North during the early 20th century. And he pointed out how those 6 million blacks totally transformed several major Northern cities such as Detroit.

    Someone in Europe has to absorb this lesson of history. If 6 million blacks can transform most of our Northern cities, what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe's cities?

    “what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe’s cities?”

    About the same effect as a hundred nukes!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. J.Ross says: • Website
    @istevefan
    I think Sailer has brought this up before that about 6 million American blacks migrated North during the early 20th century. And he pointed out how those 6 million blacks totally transformed several major Northern cities such as Detroit.

    Someone in Europe has to absorb this lesson of history. If 6 million blacks can transform most of our Northern cities, what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe's cities?

    When you bring this up to a European they say that it’s only in the cities, that the countryside is still pure, and that their countries are still overwhelmingly white. And also remember: prior to this they already swallowed the stuff about American blacks being the way they are merely as a result of the Klan historically dictating how real estate and law enforcement worked.
    Douglas Murray has been destroying the most respectable excuse, that these people are necessary as a future tax base and labor force. We gave already seen that the tendency to just censor and double down is a guaranteed backfire and here they are trying again even as a country as modern and Western as Italy slips from their grasp. I am encouraged by this stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Roderick Spode
    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Spode recommends Extension du domaine de la lutte by M. Houellebecq, particularly part 2, chapter 10, which is set in a provincial French nightclub on New Year's Eve.

    Single motherhood is an alarmingly strong predictor of crime and major life problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    For every single mother there’s the father who abandoned the kids.

    And it’s oretty much confined to just 2 races, Hispanic and black.

    60 and 70 and 100 and 120 years ago blacks had the same high crime rate as they do today. And the parents were all in life long marriages then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. L Woods says:
    @27 year old

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.
     
    Just because women don't like you doesn't mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie's DMs, you guys could really help eachother out

    Yes, who but a “loser” could deny the wonderfulness of our precious white women

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Whiskey says: • Website
    @istevefan

    White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male
     
    Is it women, or just white women?

    Are Japanese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Japanese male?

    Are Chinese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Chinese male?

    Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?

    Are Iraqi women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Iraqi male?

    etc., etc.

    Just White women. They are the freest and have always been so if you believe Tacitus. Women despise male equals and the pill, codon + Western freedom = co tempt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    So you're saying Jews are not White.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Tiny Duck says:

    That Bowles piece was a delicious skewering

    jordan peterson’s business model of reframing childlike angst into something appearing vaguely academic is like catnip for guys who have a poster on the wall listing logical fallacies and get mad when women on okcupid dont get their neil degrasse tyson references

    Peterson is a cult leader for loser white guys

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Whiskey says: • Website
    @27 year old

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.
     
    Just because women don't like you doesn't mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie's DMs, you guys could really help eachother out

    If course women are the eternal enemy. Stop White Knighting. Women are the shock troops of gun bans, anti White politics, rapefugees, open borders, prohibituon, the drug war, WWT, World War Gay, colors of benetton, and World WarIncel now I guess since Mary Wollstonecroft. It’s Moms Demand Action on the universal White make disarmament act. So every day can be Reginald Denny Day. White dudes are not screaming take my gun. It’s all White women. The inevitable hate for men their equal.

    Just noticing. If White women acted like the women of Japan we would have the politics of Japan and it’s borders . We have the Liz be cause White women love it like a C W Show.

    When Israel has recent wars where Joe Average has killed some one it’s politics drift rightward. During long peace they go left. As predictable AmAnda Palmers love poem to Dhokar Tsarnaev.

    You can learn things when you are past 27.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    You're psychotic, a misogynist lunatic. I suggest you stop visiting a "Voice for men" and other MRA websites and reading all the articles and comments by your fellow lunatic misogynists." White women -all of them, most of them, including the majority of married white women who voted for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton?- are to blame for everything. And anyone who disagrees is a "mangina" and "white knight." Yes, if we exterminated all or most white women and also the girls, apparently, before they turned into evil white women, all of our problems, as you see them, would be solved and the U.S. would be a Muslim-like utopia. White male left-liberals, white male Democrats, white male "neocons" and "conservatism, Inc." apparatchiks, billionaire white male donors, gentile and Jewish, black males, "Hispanic" males," Islamic males, etc. have no power and influence. They're merely the puppets of evil white females!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @27 year old
    And the real, um, bitch, of it is, that women would all be much happier in a system where each man was higher status than women -- because they could all land a high status man.

    I think that’s the thermo tax on being alive. To get to a higher state requires a bit of sacrifice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anonymous
    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims. What Muslims really have is enforced monogamy and patriarchy, with an allowance for limited polygamy. Polygamy is rare when you have enforced monogamy and patriarchy.

    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims.

    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

    It is common enough in urban Britain that everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as “pleasure wives” by Muslim men, often when the latter are working away from home. The local Sharia courts often hear petitions from convert women for divorce on the grounds of abandonment (i.e. hubby has gone home to his principal wife).

    Needless to say, the authorities turn a blind eye to offences of bigamy, as well as those defined by the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, if the perpetrator is Muslim.

    I suggest that Muslims in the West have just as much fornication and adultery as their host societies, but religious and social pressure prevents Muslim men from doing these things with their own women: so they use infidel women instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "in urban Britain ... everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as “pleasure wives” by Muslim men"

    I had a young colleague ten years back who would regale me with the sorrows of her best friend from college, who had been 'in a relationship' with a Muslim guy for three years, but was very unhappy because he never took her anywhere, she'd never see his friends, his family were unaware of her existence. Basically he'd come round to her flat a couple of times a week and they'd go to bed, or they'd have "weekends away" - a long way away, in places with little chance of anyone knowing him.

    I had to tell my slightly naive colleague that the guy obviously had everything he wanted from the relationship and her friend shouldn't expect things to change.

    , @anon
    That’s why they go after 13 year old British girls instead of after their own 13 year olds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy. Under polygamy, there are plenty of quality husbands to go around, so polygamous women don’t have to diet as much… Here is former South African president Jacob Zuma and a number of his First Ladies, none of whom look like they will pass up a nice big slice of their hubby’s birthday cake.

    Jacob Zuma is black, and black guys like fat chicks.

    I can easily imagine weight-watching competition being just as fierce in white polygamy, especially with easy divorce.

    If you get fat, you’d better at least be good at laundry and cooking and keeping quiet, because you are surely more replaceable than you would be under monogamy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Buzz Mohawk
    Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation's Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It's the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that's about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it's all just being used for other people's benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    “You’re taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    That's pretty funny, and right around the time I read the book. That was in Boulder, Colorado, where Bly was of course popular. It's a nice place, but if you really want to grow up and be a man, you have to leave. It dawns on me now that this is paradoxically Bly-like.
    , @Pericles
    Then Lord Byron rose after swimming the Hellespont, casually slapped Scott around a bit, crushed his glasses and, while looking down on Scott fumbling on the ground, asked him, "How is this for manly, you puling coward? And stop crying, you're disgracing yourself."
    , @Anonymous Human Intelligence Operative

    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    “You’re taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?”
     
    Homer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anonymous[386] • Disclaimer says:

    You know what matters? The names of these “journalists” that Steve excerpts.

    This time it’s “By Nellie Bowles” … very unusual eccentric first name for modern times. Million to one odds that her father named her.

    I could go on but my real comment is that the names matter. The names point to the grievances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The name Nellie Bowles is reminiscent of Nellie Bly, a famous 19th Century lady journalist who went around the world in 72 days in real life to break Jules Verne's fictional 80 day mark.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. AndrewR says:
    @njguy73
    From the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, considered the best reference work ever written:

    The Somali are a fighting race and all go armed with spear, shield and short sword (and guns when they can get them). During the rains incessant intertribal lootings of cattle take place. Among certain tribes those who have killed a man have the right to wear an ostrich-feather in their hair. They are great talkers, keenly sensitive to ridicule, and quick-tempered. Women hold a degraded position among the Somali (wives being often looted with sheep), doing most of the hard work. The Somali love display; they are inordinately vain and avaricious; but they make loyal and trustworthy soldiers and are generally bright and intelligent.

    The Somali have very little political or social cohesion, and are divided into a multiplicity of rers or fakidas (tribes, clans). Three main divisions, however, have been clearly determined, and these are important both on political and ethnical grounds.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Somaliland

    I thought they had a 65 median IQ…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. AndrewR says:
    @Cagey Beast
    They're so mendacious and socially corrosive that I can't help enjoying them.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3K5RCqsybA

    Their impersonations of Peterson’s irritating Canadian accent are pretty funny, and I’m no worshipper of his, but the intellectual dishonesty they were displaying towards Peterson’s arguments is rather disgusting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous
    You know what matters? The names of these "journalists" that Steve excerpts.

    This time it's "By Nellie Bowles" ... very unusual eccentric first name for modern times. Million to one odds that her father named her.

    I could go on but my real comment is that the names matter. The names point to the grievances.

    The name Nellie Bowles is reminiscent of Nellie Bly, a famous 19th Century lady journalist who went around the world in 72 days in real life to break Jules Verne’s fictional 80 day mark.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    Definitely not her greatest accomplishment. In fact, I'd say she Noticed.
    , @DFH
    Nelly is a great name for a dog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Stan Adams
    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:
    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    "You're taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?"

    That’s pretty funny, and right around the time I read the book. That was in Boulder, Colorado, where Bly was of course popular. It’s a nice place, but if you really want to grow up and be a man, you have to leave. It dawns on me now that this is paradoxically Bly-like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Lurker says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    none of whom look like they will pass up a nice big slice of their hubby’s birthday cake
     
    Yes, but the one to his immediate left, now she is build for lovin. The one next to her looks like her yellow bile cocktail went down hard and the lemon-juice chaser just made things worse.

    She gets my seal of approval! (If I had to chose)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anon[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    There are some advantages to polygamy, such as that women don’t have to watch their weight as obsessively as under monogamy. Under polygamy, there are plenty of quality husbands to go around, so women don’t have to diet as much as Melania Trump does under serial monogamy.
     
    There's no such thing as "serial monogamy". The term "serial monogamy" is a rhetorical sleight of hand that was conjured up to conceal the decline of monogamy. Serial monogamy is polygyny. It's not like married couples swapping wives or something.

    The correct term is “serial polygyny.”

    For some reason, Steve and Heartiste stubbornly avoid employing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @coyote
    "serial polygyny" is for the educated; CH uses a term for those who were not fortunate to have become so: the "cock carousel". easily understandable, insultingly obvious, and it leads one to the alpha fuks, beta bucks discovery of the reality of female hypergamy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @ChrisZ
    Spode, Houellebecq is unquestionably the diagnostician of nearly all of the pathologies of the present age. In “Submission” he rightly saw polygamy as the selling point for the coming age of Islam (and slyly predicted its discontents as well).

    I think it’s arguable that our society has been maneuvered into polygamy for at least a generation. Sexual license, no-fault divorce, ridicule of religion, feminism—these have all played a role early on. The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. Male resentment would predictably erupt into violence.

    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions as unqualifiedly superior. Hence the social project of the last decade. It’s only a matter of time before a person who has NOT been in a homosexual union is decried as a bigot.

    Once enough young men have been brought to heel in this way, it’ll be safe for societal elites to effect that tricky “do as I say, not as I do” thing they do, maybe under some kind of “humanitarian” alibi, and re-institute polygamy as a caste prerogative.

    Well, at least it would make a good plot for a Houellebecqian novel.

    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality

    What about porn, vidya, and professional sports?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Lot says:
    @njguy73
    From the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, considered the best reference work ever written:

    The Somali are a fighting race and all go armed with spear, shield and short sword (and guns when they can get them). During the rains incessant intertribal lootings of cattle take place. Among certain tribes those who have killed a man have the right to wear an ostrich-feather in their hair. They are great talkers, keenly sensitive to ridicule, and quick-tempered. Women hold a degraded position among the Somali (wives being often looted with sheep), doing most of the hard work. The Somali love display; they are inordinately vain and avaricious; but they make loyal and trustworthy soldiers and are generally bright and intelligent.

    The Somali have very little political or social cohesion, and are divided into a multiplicity of rers or fakidas (tribes, clans). Three main divisions, however, have been clearly determined, and these are important both on political and ethnical grounds.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Somaliland

    And in conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    And in conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.
     
    You're just a flat-out plagiarist - straight off my 6th grade construction-paper-bound report on Ceylon. Is every damn thing on the internet now!? Criminy!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Silva says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The name Nellie Bowles is reminiscent of Nellie Bly, a famous 19th Century lady journalist who went around the world in 72 days in real life to break Jules Verne's fictional 80 day mark.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly

    Definitely not her greatest accomplishment. In fact, I’d say she Noticed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Pericles says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Interestingly, in the Twin Cities underground polygamy is much more of a problem among the Hmong than among the Mohammedan Somalis. That guy who shot up the hunters across the river in Wisconsin had a second, "cultural" wife in St Paul.

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

    Don’t cringe and bow before the invaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Don’t cringe and bow before the invaders.
     
    I was talking about domestic issues, not immigration. Domestic, as in "within the household". I meant, no Somaliman would cross a Somali woman. His wife is not an "invader". Any more than her fetus is, to her.

    There are no Somalis within my household. It's enough to handle a Franco-Norman-Nordic spouse as it is.

    And remember, in Hell, you're issued an American wife.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Pericles says:
    @Cagey Beast
    "By Nellie Bowles"

    Typical. No group on earth wants to stick it to White men more than university educated Gentile, Anglo women. Even Jews and gays can't beat "our" ladies.

    She was awarded a first-class degree in nagging.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'm certain that's what drives them. White ladies feel comfortable using the state, mass media and academia to nag the men of their tribe across time and space. They lack the situational awareness to see how badly this hurts them in the long run. I think they're hardwired not to understand things at the political level. "The personal is political" ain't just a river in Egypt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Pericles says:
    @Stan Adams
    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:
    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    "You're taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?"

    Then Lord Byron rose after swimming the Hellespont, casually slapped Scott around a bit, crushed his glasses and, while looking down on Scott fumbling on the ground, asked him, “How is this for manly, you puling coward? And stop crying, you’re disgracing yourself.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Pericles

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

     

    Don't cringe and bow before the invaders.

    Don’t cringe and bow before the invaders.

    I was talking about domestic issues, not immigration. Domestic, as in “within the household”. I meant, no Somaliman would cross a Somali woman. His wife is not an “invader”. Any more than her fetus is, to her.

    There are no Somalis within my household. It’s enough to handle a Franco-Norman-Nordic spouse as it is.

    And remember, in Hell, you’re issued an American wife.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Tony Maloney
    I would really like to see Steve devote a column to the issue of late 60s free love cults. I think they can shed some light on where we are going with our culture of pronounced sexual tolerance.

    My understanding is that, for example, the Father Yod cult started off as a free love thing, and within about three years, Father Yod had 14 wives. What this says to me is that so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time. Presumably by this point some of the other men must have felt that it was time to leave. Unless you are guaranteed at least 1 wife, what is the point of endorsing a culture of free love?

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy. But there was also large communities of celibate priests and nuns. And there was a much harsher policing of homosexual relations.

    I am curious what this model says about where we should go from here.

    “so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time.”

    Free Love-ism is just a transitory stage on the way to Big Man-ism, here and elsewhere.

    https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/restorationquarterly/vol42/iss1/3/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. DFH says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The name Nellie Bowles is reminiscent of Nellie Bly, a famous 19th Century lady journalist who went around the world in 72 days in real life to break Jules Verne's fictional 80 day mark.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bly

    Nelly is a great name for a dog

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @bjondo
    Just know the argument is BS when a leader is compared to average guy.

    I know lots of Muslims in US, Europe and in ME. All are monogamous. Strongly.

    Yes, it is a funny irony how today the “polygamous” Muslim is so often more monogamous than the “monogamous” Christian. Indeed, the modern Muslim is often more Christian than the modern “Christian”, and more civilized and more cultured than the modern Westerner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    I have to agree. Horror stories about the refugee invasion of Europe aside, I have taught many Middle Eastern students and they were all joy to have in my class- intellectually curious, diligent, respectful of authority, etc. I wouldn't say they were geniuses but they were definitely more cultured than the average American child. Most were Palestinian but some were from North Africa and Iraq. I don't even dislike seeing the (reasonable- not the trash bag type things) hijab anymore, as I used to.

    Of course I'm assuming those who make it here are not representative of the average Middle Easterner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. The most denounced line:

    “The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”

    If fact, we sort of have that now, only worse. In the English-speaking world, the current law is, in effect, one-way state-enforced monogamy. That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.

    Whenever there is a way to have the worst of both worlds, liberalism will find it and enforce it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.
    , @aajj
    That's actually not true. My friend Wendy is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, never helped with the kids, never allowed Wendy out of his sight and was in and out of rehab so many times. Is she happy now? Hell yes...and happy to pay alimony to have him gone.
    , @anon
    No one pays child support for life. It’s just till the child is 18 or after another expensive court hearing 21 if the child
    (Not the mother) requests the father provide the grown child with the same education the father had.

    Parents are obligated by law to support their children.

    Alimony ceased to exist decades ago. Now it’s very rare and only for rehabilitation sliming. That’s a year of trade school, not years of college for the very rare women who married young, never worked a paid job and have no job skills.
    I very much doubt that all you men who think men should not support their children have children.

    If you did have children you wouldn’t be so adamantly against men supporting their children .

    No wife no kids celibate old codgers glued to their computer screens obsessed with other people’s sex lives that’s what most of the commenters in Unz are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @ChrisZ
    Spode, Houellebecq is unquestionably the diagnostician of nearly all of the pathologies of the present age. In “Submission” he rightly saw polygamy as the selling point for the coming age of Islam (and slyly predicted its discontents as well).

    I think it’s arguable that our society has been maneuvered into polygamy for at least a generation. Sexual license, no-fault divorce, ridicule of religion, feminism—these have all played a role early on. The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. Male resentment would predictably erupt into violence.

    The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions as unqualifiedly superior. Hence the social project of the last decade. It’s only a matter of time before a person who has NOT been in a homosexual union is decried as a bigot.

    Once enough young men have been brought to heel in this way, it’ll be safe for societal elites to effect that tricky “do as I say, not as I do” thing they do, maybe under some kind of “humanitarian” alibi, and re-institute polygamy as a caste prerogative.

    Well, at least it would make a good plot for a Houellebecqian novel.

    “The great danger to overcome, though, was how to pacify the pent up frustration of lower-caste males that would inevitably arise in the projected new polygamous order. …. The solution has been to legitimize homosexuality, and even promote same sex unions”

    You have a point. I’m sure a couple of the young ‘gay men’ of my children’s acquaintance are in fact making a virtue of necessity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @James N. Kennett

    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims.
    ...
    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

     

    It is common enough in urban Britain that everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as "pleasure wives" by Muslim men, often when the latter are working away from home. The local Sharia courts often hear petitions from convert women for divorce on the grounds of abandonment (i.e. hubby has gone home to his principal wife).

    Needless to say, the authorities turn a blind eye to offences of bigamy, as well as those defined by the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, if the perpetrator is Muslim.

    I suggest that Muslims in the West have just as much fornication and adultery as their host societies, but religious and social pressure prevents Muslim men from doing these things with their own women: so they use infidel women instead.

    “in urban Britain … everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as “pleasure wives” by Muslim men”

    I had a young colleague ten years back who would regale me with the sorrows of her best friend from college, who had been ‘in a relationship’ with a Muslim guy for three years, but was very unhappy because he never took her anywhere, she’d never see his friends, his family were unaware of her existence. Basically he’d come round to her flat a couple of times a week and they’d go to bed, or they’d have “weekends away” – a long way away, in places with little chance of anyone knowing him.

    I had to tell my slightly naive colleague that the guy obviously had everything he wanted from the relationship and her friend shouldn’t expect things to change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Svigor says:
    @Whiskey
    Just White women. They are the freest and have always been so if you believe Tacitus. Women despise male equals and the pill, codon + Western freedom = co tempt.

    So you’re saying Jews are not White.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @njguy73
    From the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, considered the best reference work ever written:

    The Somali are a fighting race and all go armed with spear, shield and short sword (and guns when they can get them). During the rains incessant intertribal lootings of cattle take place. Among certain tribes those who have killed a man have the right to wear an ostrich-feather in their hair. They are great talkers, keenly sensitive to ridicule, and quick-tempered. Women hold a degraded position among the Somali (wives being often looted with sheep), doing most of the hard work. The Somali love display; they are inordinately vain and avaricious; but they make loyal and trustworthy soldiers and are generally bright and intelligent.

    The Somali have very little political or social cohesion, and are divided into a multiplicity of rers or fakidas (tribes, clans). Three main divisions, however, have been clearly determined, and these are important both on political and ethnical grounds.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Somaliland

    The 1911 Britannica is a treasure trove of suppressed knowledge.

    As is the 1917 Catholic Encyclopaedia – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Pericles
    She was awarded a first-class degree in nagging.

    I’m certain that’s what drives them. White ladies feel comfortable using the state, mass media and academia to nag the men of their tribe across time and space. They lack the situational awareness to see how badly this hurts them in the long run. I think they’re hardwired not to understand things at the political level. “The personal is political” ain’t just a river in Egypt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Whitehall says:

    To Matthew at #50,

    Thorsten Veblen generalized the preference of men like Zuma as conspicuous consumption in his “Theory of the Leisure Class.”

    He posited that in hungry societies, a Big Man would have fat wives to show that he could feed all his house mates and their offspring.

    In wealthy societies, a Big Man would have a public wife was was thin and frail, to signal that his wife didn’t have to work at anything useful. Mistresses are optional.

    Both are examples of conspicuous consumption.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. @Tony Maloney
    I would really like to see Steve devote a column to the issue of late 60s free love cults. I think they can shed some light on where we are going with our culture of pronounced sexual tolerance.

    My understanding is that, for example, the Father Yod cult started off as a free love thing, and within about three years, Father Yod had 14 wives. What this says to me is that so-called liberated American women will default to polygamy in very rapid time. Presumably by this point some of the other men must have felt that it was time to leave. Unless you are guaranteed at least 1 wife, what is the point of endorsing a culture of free love?

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy. But there was also large communities of celibate priests and nuns. And there was a much harsher policing of homosexual relations.

    I am curious what this model says about where we should go from here.

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.

    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.

    One thing i’ve realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people–and pretty much all the “liberals”–have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy–loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and “education” just have no idea what’s going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics–making their careers in the social sciences–are among the most clueless. Amazingly–despite their chosen profession in “social science”–they never seem to have asked themselves, “why do we have civilization?” “what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?”

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years … just sort of happened. It’s free. Or “just is”. And the important question–the only question that actually excites their brains–is “how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies”.

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You’ll never know the answer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Great comment sir!
    , @Olorin
    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    You know, like they accuse men of doing to The Earth.

    Which is factual, which is why men in the 1900s became aware of conservation/ecology/environmentalism and shifted their systems thinking.

    Now we have to challenge women/blacks to do the same, but it'll be hard since they're not systems thinkers accustomed to organizing to get concrete things done. I have said for 30 years that if you have to move a sofa between a third-floor apartment and a truck at the curb, social studies professors/majors are the ones to absolutely exclude. If you want to get it moved, that is. If you want to talk about it getting moved, or analyze the dialectic of its movement, or deconstruct its power relations, they're the shizz.

    Here, from the #MenAreAwesome twitter thang:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS2mDuEWUAAequr.jpg

    , @James N. Kennett
    Great comment.

    And the important question–the only question that actually excites their brains–is “how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies”.
     
    I wish they were as thoughtful as that. Instead they tell us that white men slowed down the march of civilization by refusing the contributions of others.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Pro comment.

    pretty much all the “liberals”–have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. ...
    ... to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years … just sort of happened. It’s free. Or “just is”.
     
    Ann Coulter had a funny line like, liberals "have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter."

    Very true. Those are micro- examples of the macro- problem: they don't understand that civilization is elective, not guaranteed.

    "If you never bother to ask the question, why? You’ll never know the answer."
     
    I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that a very large (and increasing) number of people are simply not interested in the Why's and Wherefore's of their existence (or anyone else's). They just don't care.

    A wiser civilization than ours would reserve an area of non-strategic land where everyone who doesn't want to contribute to civilization could live in peace (from the civilized) in their non-civilized ways. Most of them would probably very suddenly make the connection between civilization and all the stuff that they like. Then they can be readmitted on probation. The very small number who really do prefer the wilderness can live there, but they probably won't be very tolerant of civilization's malcontents. The word "savagery" literally means someone who lives in the forest. But there is a reason that it has come to have its other meanings.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Gold-box stuff here, Dad.

    The hallmark of the degenerate Left's mindset is ingratitude.

    Those Christian forefathers (and mothers) who built up the Church, and then a civilization floodlit with artistic expression suffused with a Christian worldview -- they're reduced to oppressors, to be demonized and denigrated and deconstructed at every turn, thereby deracinating and demeaning their heirs.

    Those grunts who this very day put food on your table, who keep your lights on and your water running, who build and maintain and police the roads -- they're always unworthy of catching your eye, and often beneath your contempt.

    It's a mindset that wallows in its unearned privilege and prosperity, then turns and spits in the faces of those made -- and make -- those blessings possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Buzz Mohawk
    Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation's Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It's the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that's about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it's all just being used for other people's benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    My mother was a friend of the late Carol Bly, Robert Bly’s ex-wife, for about 60 years. I remember meeting her and her son not long before she died. She was rather dismissive of the Iron John men’s movement thing, but had some fond memories of their time together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Bly

    My mother told me that when Robert and Carol were engaged, my father tried to talk Carol out of marrying Robert. As in “don’t marry that Harvard poet”. Interesting, because at the time one of my father’s best friends was a poet he knew from Columbia, Allen Ginsberg. My father was very fond of Allen, but considered Allen to be stark raving bonkers. My father thought poets and writers were interesting people to hang out with, but not someone to actually marry. Another of my father’s friends, Joan Vollmer, had already been killed by her writer husband, William Burroughs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer

    I read Iron John. Interesting in a sociological sense, but not impressive writing at all. Many in my family thought Carol Bly to be a far better writer than Robert Bly, but she never got famous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    That's fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing it. I saw Ginsburg around Boulder when he lived there.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    That is really something, that your Dad was in the midst of the Beat poets. I only know anything about it from 5 1/2 minutes or so of reading for background for 10,003 Maniacs, which is about the song Hey, Jack Kerouac off of the 10,000 Maniacs great In my Tribe album from the early '90's.

    I'll just put the vid here. I would imagine you, or even your Dad, P.L. would have heard this song, but if not, please do. Natalie Merchant is no Michael Stipe (REM), as in we don't need no steeenking lyrics. She belts out the lyrics powerfully and annunciates like, I dunno, a beat poet? So, I don't need to include them, but they cover all of your Dad's friends.

    (The line about "like Mary down in Mexico on All Saints Day" has something to do with Burrough's killing of his wife down in ole Mehico.) What a nutty crowd.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a63PArLmEHs
    , @MBlanc46
    Names to conjure with PL. I wonder whether this is first time that Joan Vollmer’s name has been mentioned on iSteve. Any other comments section and I’d say almost certainly. But here, it’s certainly pslsible that she has been, at least once. But now, not only mentioned, but mentioned by someone whose father knew her. You might have alluded to the fact that her killing was not intentional. Burroughs was trying to demonstrate that he coukd shoot the apple—or whatever it was—off of her head without shooting her. If only the gun’s sights weren’t faulty. Or if only Burroughs hadn’t been completely wacko on drugs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Lurker says:
    @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.

    Great comment sir!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Achmed E. Newman
    I! AM! WHISKEY!

    I! AM! WHISKEY! Hear me roar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I was thinking of this in the Spartacus sense, per Jim Don Bob, but that works too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @27 year old

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.
     
    Just because women don't like you doesn't mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie's DMs, you guys could really help eachother out

    Yes, the “eternal enemy” bit is wrong and hyperbole.
    But there really is something “polygamous” (there’s probably a better term) to the current cultural milieu of the last 20 years. And while it is worthwhile to look at what women say, we need really only look at what they do.

    When life circumstances permit, i.e. when a woman is sufficiently attractive, has free time, some disposable income, family and/or religious pressure is not constraining her, many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet – continually searching for better partners.
    For all the stupidity of the various Red Pill forums, they are on to something real with the concept of the “cock carousel”. I’ve seen this behaviour in literally all of the age appropriate women in my extended family as well as many of the women I socialized with in college. A decade ago I just thought my family was dysfunctional (my mother’s side is Appalachian) but I now realize there are much larger cultural forces at work on young Western women.

    It is foolish to ignore this, even if the people complaining about it are losers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Another pervert obsessing about the imaginary cock carousel. This obsession of all you celibate old codgers with other people’s sex lives is just porn and preversion.
    And where do those women find the cocks pray tell? You celibate old codgers seen to think that men need a date rape drug and viagra because men are so chaste and virtuous and paragons of morality they would never never go out hunting one night stands.

    Read your posts. They are laughable. If you can’t get any, that’s your problem.

    If you spend your life wanking about other people’s sex lives go ahead. Posting your porn fantasies makes it clear what pathetic losers you old codgers are.

    , @27 year old

    When life circumstances permit... many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet – continually searching for better partners.
     
    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it's not the whole story.

    Some, possibly even most, of what looks like cock carousel riding is girls giving up the pussy early in attempt to secure a committed relationship from a man that they would be delighted to settle down with, only to then be disappointed when he answers her "so what are we" text with "lol".
    , @MBlanc46
    Brother Whiskey is indeed prone to hyperbole. Nuance and qualification are not in his rhetorical arsenal. But he’s mostly correct about women’s behavior. Women have evolved to reject low-status males. That has no doubt benefited the species as a whole. It probably also limited the species to a hunter-gatherer existence (too much male-male violence to allow larger economic projects). At some point (probably early in the neolithic), men imposed permanent monogamy on women (aka the Patriarchy). The top men got fewer women, but most men got a woman. The big cost was that most women were bound to a low-status man. To borrow one of Whiskey’s favorite phrases, women hate, hate, hated it. The upside of it was that women (and men) got civilization. But with modernity (a Western invention) women saw an opportunity to break free from the Patriarchy (aka permanent monogamy). And Western men, in thrall to modernity themselves, and worn down by women's nagging and badgering, gave in. Apparently, women, and many men, believe that civilization and permanent monogamy are independent of one another. We shall see whether or not that is the case.

    I part company with Whiskey when he claims that it is only Western women who are susceptible to rebelling against their men. As Asian women enter more deeply into modernity, look for them to begin to behave just as Western women have.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Olorin says:
    @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.

    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    You know, like they accuse men of doing to The Earth.

    Which is factual, which is why men in the 1900s became aware of conservation/ecology/environmentalism and shifted their systems thinking.

    Now we have to challenge women/blacks to do the same, but it’ll be hard since they’re not systems thinkers accustomed to organizing to get concrete things done. I have said for 30 years that if you have to move a sofa between a third-floor apartment and a truck at the curb, social studies professors/majors are the ones to absolutely exclude. If you want to get it moved, that is. If you want to talk about it getting moved, or analyze the dialectic of its movement, or deconstruct its power relations, they’re the shizz.

    Here, from the #MenAreAwesome twitter thang:

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Another dad isn’t a dad. He has no kids. If you read his posts carefully you can figure out he’s childless
    , @Brutusale

    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.
     
    Exactly this. Sitting in Starbucks right now doing paperwork and reading iSteve, looking at 100% of the seats outside occupied by non-customers, hausfraus bringing the kids in to use the newly-minted "public" toilets, watching a wedding consultant and a financial advisor using the place as their office, listening to the employees complain about what a no-win situation corporate has put them in, and all I can think is "Nice little country. It's ashamed what's happened to it!".
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    This is an excellent post with an excellent photo of an excellent poster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Almost Missouri
    Yes, it is a funny irony how today the "polygamous" Muslim is so often more monogamous than the "monogamous" Christian. Indeed, the modern Muslim is often more Christian than the modern "Christian", and more civilized and more cultured than the modern Westerner.

    I have to agree. Horror stories about the refugee invasion of Europe aside, I have taught many Middle Eastern students and they were all joy to have in my class- intellectually curious, diligent, respectful of authority, etc. I wouldn’t say they were geniuses but they were definitely more cultured than the average American child. Most were Palestinian but some were from North Africa and Iraq. I don’t even dislike seeing the (reasonable- not the trash bag type things) hijab anymore, as I used to.

    Of course I’m assuming those who make it here are not representative of the average Middle Easterner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Tipsy
    Long ago, in 1993, William Tucker wrote an apologia for monogamy, called "Monogamy and its Discontents". If you look around, you can still find the odd copy of it.

    Tucker concludes:

    Family values are basically the belief that monogamy is the most peaceful and progressive way of organizing a human society. Dislike and distaste for anything that challenges the monogamous contract - easy divorce, widespread pornography, legalized prostitution, out-of-wedlock child bearing, blatant homosexuality, [+ pervasive hypergamy, promiscuity, polygamy, gender disphoria, etc. ed.]-are not just narrow or prudish concerns. They come from an intelligent recognition that the monogamous contract is a fragile institution that can easily unravel if dissaffections become too widespread.


    What is likely to happen if we abandon these values? People will go on reproducing, you can be sure of that. But families won't be formed ("litters" might be a more appropriate term). And the human beings that are produced in these litters will not be quite the same either. If marriage is a compromise between men and women, then the breakdown of monogamy can only let loose the natural egocentrisms of both.

    It is probably not too alarmist to note that societies that have been unable to establish monogamy have also been unable to create working democracies or widely distributed wealth. No society that domesticates too few men can have a stable social order. People who are incapable of monogamy are probably incapable of many other things as well.

    As a basically limiting human compact, monogamous marriage is bound to produce its peculiar difficulties. As with any compromise, each individual can argue based on present or previous deprivation, real or imagined-that he or she should not be bound by the rules.

    Yet it should also be clear that, beyond the personal dissatisfactions we all may feel, each of us also retains a permanent, private stake in sustaining a system that creates a peaceful social order and offers to everyone a reasonable chance of achieving personal happiness. If monogamy makes complex demands on human beings, it also offers unique and complex rewards.
     

    Another work worth consulting about the importance of monogamy is J.D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15707651-sex-and-culture

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Also the crisis in Western masculinity can be attributed to 3 things: video games, porn, and lack of sunshine.

    Fix those issues and watch how quickly young men act like normal young men, and then young women respond in kind.

    Teenagers nowadays hardly date, it’s ridiculous. They don’t have any interests beyond the doors of their bedrooms. They have terrible social skills. And not just the nerds, it’s everyone aside from perhaps the jocks.

    Also it’s important to note young women didn’t really start getting fat and sloppy en masse until the 2000s, a decade later than young men were already consumed with their video games.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I work at a university full of young women. They are almost all slim to medium and more slim than medium I don’t think you old codgers ever get out and away from your computers to see the women you’re posting about.
    , @J.Ross
    Dishonest. The thing to fix is divorce. Men are fleeing to escapism as a reaction and not initially.
    , @britishbrainsize1325cclol
    So you want to go back to the good ole days of drugs sex and rock and roll and pure excess, sure go back to those days you just might get more foreign invasions , aids that are the cause of mellenials health problems
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. coyote says:
    @Anon
    The correct term is "serial polygyny."

    For some reason, Steve and Heartiste stubbornly avoid employing it.

    “serial polygyny” is for the educated; CH uses a term for those who were not fortunate to have become so: the “cock carousel”. easily understandable, insultingly obvious, and it leads one to the alpha fuks, beta bucks discovery of the reality of female hypergamy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Flip says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Sorry, I wrote my previous comment before I read yours - reading upwards today for some reason.

    I've been enjoying your comments lately. BTW, that Band on the Run, though great, has gotten too familiar, so I would suggest these two Wings songs for the evening:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qnRvJZfh1c

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEil2e_bUvg

    Little known tidbit, for your edification - this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!

    Little known tidbit, for your edification – this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!

    Yeah, the Quarrymen were pretty good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Little known fact about the Quarrymen. Their first paid gig was at a church fair

    When it ended they waited for a bus to go home. They were attacked by a gang of about 15 n word Caribbean blacks. They escaped to a nearby house. Police were called and guarded the Quarrymen till their bus came.

    Of course that was in the bad old days of the 1950s when the racist non PC White British police guarded the native White British from rampaging blacks.

    Nowadays a White Boys band would probably be charged with hate crime for fleeing an attack by the stormtroopers of the chosen.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    It's really great to know that this joke has been extended - may be good for another 20 years or so, until people (like me) forget who The Quarrymen were.

    ;-}
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Almost Missouri

    The most denounced line:

    “The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
     

    If fact, we sort of have that now, only worse. In the English-speaking world, the current law is, in effect, one-way state-enforced monogamy. That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, "child support" (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.

    Whenever there is a way to have the worst of both worlds, liberalism will find it and enforce it.

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.

    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do–chase other women. And a societal constraints–scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband–to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do–reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok … it’s eat-pray-love liberating, “self-discovery”. (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband … and within a year two of her best friends followed suit–for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties–except child care–at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty–provision–indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids … and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn’t have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave–who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I’m actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I’m surprised there aren’t more murders of ex-wives, of family court “judges”, of lawyers. Surprised more men don’t just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of “child support”. The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about “gender neutral” blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it–because feminism has nothing to do with “equality”. But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent–not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something–beyond their marital responsibilities–they’ll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i’d bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they’d actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aajj
    You are way off. I am a divorced woman for very good reason. ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse, mental abuse. I don't know of one woman who has left her spouse just for the hell of it. When you see women leave, they are leaving because of deep unhappiness and often fear. This is not about feminism. It is about the ability of a human being to leave a unbearable situation for a better life.

    Also, one of my friends is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, was an alcoholic, physical abuser and was in an out of rehab. I didn't get alimony. In Texas, there is no alimony.

    I have known women leave with the clothes on their backs to escape a bad situation

    Also, women work and own property or co own property, so "they don't get the house". They can "buy" their former spouse's share of the house. Or they get 50% of the assets acquired during a marriage (that they worked for and earned). You really don't have a clue. If you want to know why women leave a marriage...ask a woman.

    I will tell you this. My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce. He wanted to see if the new relationship worked out. Well....HELL NO!!! I filed. I had no job, no skills and have not remarried nor do I want to. Yes, women are the ones filing because most of the time men won't do it. Women have opportunity now to no longer put up with intolerable situations.

    Solution? Spouses (men and women) be pleasant to be around, considerate, loyal, kind, honest and work hard to make each other happy and feel safe.

    Now I think the thing you should know is happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands
    , @anon
    Alimony has disappeared except for
    “ rehabilitation alimony”. That’s for the very few women who married young never worked and have no job skills. The alimony is supposed to pay for a year of trade school but not years of college.

    As for child support are you a squirt and scram pump and dump black man who believes his children are the responsibility of the mother and the state? If you refuse to support your children that’s your business. you should call yourself deadbeat dad instead of another dad

    I don’t want to support anyone’s. children but my own and certainly not yours because you don’t believe men should support their children.

    From your posts I don’t think you are a bitter divorced man. I think you’re single, never married no kids because of your ignorance about alimony and belief that only mothers, not fathers should support the kids.

    If you had kids you wouldn’t be posting that men should abandon the kids when they get divorced
    , @sabril

    I’m actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap.
     
    I think part of it is that the system is set up to bring the iron fist down pretty fast on any man who steps out of line. For example, you talk about leaving the country, but the State Department will cancel the passport of any man who is behind more than some threshold amount on child support.

    Presumably, a formidable man, one who is smart and determined, could circumvent problems like this. But such a man is likely to have accumulated enough social status that his wife wouldn't eat/pray/love him in the first place. Because a woman can take away money from a man in divorce court but there's no way to expropriate his social status. If he is a doctor, an attorney, a tenured professor, etc., his ex-wife can get child support and alimony, but she no longer gets to tell her friends that she's married to such a man.
    , @Janus
    My idea has been that in a no-fault divorce custody should automatically be granted to the parent not filing.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    I’m actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I’m surprised there aren’t more murders of ex-wives, of family court “judges”, of lawyers. Surprised more men don’t just leave the country to start again elsewhere.
     
    I have written the same before, somewhere under one of iSteve's posts. I think I know the answer though. It's not from personal experience, as I am not divorced, but I can see what's happened to other men. (This disclaimer is in here to avoid a reply from Anon-257.)

    It's always about the kids for the divorced Dad. If there were no kids, it's just no problem as if a man gets saddled with undeserved alimony, there are lots of options. A man can make it on his own off the grid, if he doesn't mind that kind of life - partly just as a way of stickin' it to the man, if nothing else. A man doesn't need the high-cost lifestyle that women crave. He CAN, if he is smart enough to avoid the various forms of entrapment by the STATE, plan ahead, then just high-tail it down to Costa Rica or Belize or Thailand (personally, I'd try Uruguay). Leave it all behind, AND stick it to the man - a win-win!

    Now, with the kids around, any thoughts of going postal* bring up other thoughts of what the kids will think of you (being in jail or gone for good in some way). Even with only limited access to them, and the ex-wife's influence, a divorced Dad can still TRY to help the kids along the right track. There's always hope, with the kids.

    I imagine that's the only thing stopping an order of magnitude more murders of ex-wives, family-court judges, and higher-, much-higher-ups.

    .
    .

    * Excuse me, not very PC there and kind of big-gov statist of me, so let's call it Going FedEx. We need more private-sector slurs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. anon[394] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Interestingly, in the Twin Cities underground polygamy is much more of a problem among the Hmong than among the Mohammedan Somalis. That guy who shot up the hunters across the river in Wisconsin had a second, "cultural" wife in St Paul.

    On the other hand, I would never cross a Somali woman. You could get hurt. They are most assuredly not the doormats so common to other Mohammedan tribes.

    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40
     
    I rather doubt that. Do they have beards?

    And this is where people get things totally wrong. Black women look tough. But when pressed, they fold like a house of spades and clubs.

    Asian women look like doormats from the outside. But anyone who's gotten to know his share knows that underneath they are tough, tough, tough. They have a lot of fight in them-- they just don't take it out on their menfolk, as women in America and the "Nordic" fringe often do. (Their kids are another story.)

    Somali women seem to lean more toward the Asian model than the West African one. And why not? Mogadishu is actually closer to Djakarta and Saigon than it is to Dakar. And Senegal is closer to Iowa than to much of Somalia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. J1234 says:

    He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.

    Peterson has become the most dangerous person on the right (to the left.) As a consequence, the difference between him and David Duke is now negligible (to the left.) As he destroys more leftist challengers in public, they just get angrier and angrier. To be fair, he hasn’t been seriously challenged yet. Watch the pathetic performance and display by Michael Dyson at the Munk Debate in Canada the other day. I’m thinking about seeing him in Milwaukee in June, partly because I want to see what the protests are like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    His mix of lame individualism combined with rambling nonsense is not threatening to anyone.
    , @J.Ross
    I am strongly tempted to use ME Dyson's numinous and numerous Malkavian malaprops in all forthgoing comments, but I suspect that they would be rejected as outside the norms of human speech. Nevertheless his debt to the learned and venerable Oswald Bates is clear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. DFH says:
    @J1234

    He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.
     
    Peterson has become the most dangerous person on the right (to the left.) As a consequence, the difference between him and David Duke is now negligible (to the left.) As he destroys more leftist challengers in public, they just get angrier and angrier. To be fair, he hasn't been seriously challenged yet. Watch the pathetic performance and display by Michael Dyson at the Munk Debate in Canada the other day. I'm thinking about seeing him in Milwaukee in June, partly because I want to see what the protests are like.

    His mix of lame individualism combined with rambling nonsense is not threatening to anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. hyperbola says:

    As usual the NY Times is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    Nellie Bowles is a journalist at Re/code, a live tech journalism company, and has been covering tech and culture in San Francisco for four years … business reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. … Columbia University … degrees in Comparative Literature and Psychology … traveled extensively for research. She won a fellowship to McGill University to write about transcultural psychiatry and hypnosis … lived in Buenos Aires and interned for The Buenos Aires Herald … awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to Swaziland….

    The Buenos Aires Herald seems to have been one of the zionist media in Argentina

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. aajj says:
    @J.Ross
    It was depressing as hell to see on Sister Wives how the established wives just gave up on life and gained weight like they were hoping to get a Cheesey Poofs endorsement. This sounds sexist but it's generally true: a happy person whose life is going somewhere is probably in shape. I say that as an unhappy person whose life is a zoo-train continually ensuring that my kitchen still exists.

    Yes. They are miserable. Sitting around waiting for their husband to pay attention to them. Would be better if they got out of that and enjoyed the freedom of choice….choosing to live their lives on their own terms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. aajj says:
    @Almost Missouri

    The most denounced line:

    “The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
     

    If fact, we sort of have that now, only worse. In the English-speaking world, the current law is, in effect, one-way state-enforced monogamy. That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, "child support" (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.

    Whenever there is a way to have the worst of both worlds, liberalism will find it and enforce it.

    That’s actually not true. My friend Wendy is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, never helped with the kids, never allowed Wendy out of his sight and was in and out of rehab so many times. Is she happy now? Hell yes…and happy to pay alimony to have him gone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Erm ... Wendy's story is confirmation, not contradiction. The law obliges the the one with more (identifiable) money to support the one with less (identifiable) money. Usually the husband is the former, and the wife is the latter, but the reason I keep using the word "usually" is because of cases like your friend Wendy. My sympathies to her, BTW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. aajj says:
    @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    You are way off. I am a divorced woman for very good reason. ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse, mental abuse. I don’t know of one woman who has left her spouse just for the hell of it. When you see women leave, they are leaving because of deep unhappiness and often fear. This is not about feminism. It is about the ability of a human being to leave a unbearable situation for a better life.

    Also, one of my friends is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, was an alcoholic, physical abuser and was in an out of rehab. I didn’t get alimony. In Texas, there is no alimony.

    I have known women leave with the clothes on their backs to escape a bad situation

    Also, women work and own property or co own property, so “they don’t get the house”. They can “buy” their former spouse’s share of the house. Or they get 50% of the assets acquired during a marriage (that they worked for and earned). You really don’t have a clue. If you want to know why women leave a marriage…ask a woman.

    I will tell you this. My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce. He wanted to see if the new relationship worked out. Well….HELL NO!!! I filed. I had no job, no skills and have not remarried nor do I want to. Yes, women are the ones filing because most of the time men won’t do it. Women have opportunity now to no longer put up with intolerable situations.

    Solution? Spouses (men and women) be pleasant to be around, considerate, loyal, kind, honest and work hard to make each other happy and feel safe.

    Now I think the thing you should know is happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands"

    Do we have an absolute right to be happy then, and a right to create unhappiness in others if that's what it takes? A friend of my child killed herself (age 16) when her parents split up. Kids of divorce do worse (on average) than kids of intact families.

    "My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce" - OK, I can see you have a perfectly valid complaint (he sounds a bit like my dad, actually).

    "ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse"

    Of the (UK) couples we know who've split, in every single case it was the woman's decision (except the one who was thrown out after her husband discovered her affair). And none of these were alcoholics, abusers or gamblers, just guys who no longer generated 'good feelings' in their wives. One had been made bankrupt when his business failed - talk about 'for better, for worse'!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    Alimony has disappeared except for
    “ rehabilitation alimony”. That’s for the very few women who married young never worked and have no job skills. The alimony is supposed to pay for a year of trade school but not years of college.

    As for child support are you a squirt and scram pump and dump black man who believes his children are the responsibility of the mother and the state? If you refuse to support your children that’s your business. you should call yourself deadbeat dad instead of another dad

    I don’t want to support anyone’s. children but my own and certainly not yours because you don’t believe men should support their children.

    From your posts I don’t think you are a bitter divorced man. I think you’re single, never married no kids because of your ignorance about alimony and belief that only mothers, not fathers should support the kids.

    If you had kids you wouldn’t be posting that men should abandon the kids when they get divorced

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @istevefan

    White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male
     
    Is it women, or just white women?

    Are Japanese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Japanese male?

    Are Chinese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Chinese male?

    Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?

    Are Iraqi women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Iraqi male?

    etc., etc.

    “Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?”

    YES! Especially their mothers.

    Any beta Jew with half a heart will tell you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I know you don't need this linked, but for other folks:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi2TKAGLpqA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Flip

    Little known tidbit, for your edification – this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!
     
    Yeah, the Quarrymen were pretty good.

    Little known fact about the Quarrymen. Their first paid gig was at a church fair

    When it ended they waited for a bus to go home. They were attacked by a gang of about 15 n word Caribbean blacks. They escaped to a nearby house. Police were called and guarded the Quarrymen till their bus came.

    Of course that was in the bad old days of the 1950s when the racist non PC White British police guarded the native White British from rampaging blacks.

    Nowadays a White Boys band would probably be charged with hate crime for fleeing an attack by the stormtroopers of the chosen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @coyote
    "serial polygyny" is for the educated; CH uses a term for those who were not fortunate to have become so: the "cock carousel". easily understandable, insultingly obvious, and it leads one to the alpha fuks, beta bucks discovery of the reality of female hypergamy.

    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Politics is downstream of culture. I used to think that "The personal is political." was just leftist sloganeering; but after my second time dropping acid I realized it was true.

    "Rome burning doesn't affect meeeee!" - anon[257]
    , @sabril

    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?
     
    I'm not 90 or a virgin, but I am a middle-aged man who is sexually attracted to women in their 20s so I guess that makes me a "pervert" by feminist reckoning.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct -- and how it is channeled -- is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society. Single motherhood; teen pregnancy; polygamy; cuckoldry; eschewing marriage in favor of the cock carousel; these are a few examples.

    This is hardly a surprise as the instincts to survive and reproduce are the big driver of human behavior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Achmed E. Newman
    I! AM! WHISKEY!

    No! I! AM! WHISKEY!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you.

    I just need one reader to get it, that's all. ;-}
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. sabril says:
    @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    I’m actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap.

    I think part of it is that the system is set up to bring the iron fist down pretty fast on any man who steps out of line. For example, you talk about leaving the country, but the State Department will cancel the passport of any man who is behind more than some threshold amount on child support.

    Presumably, a formidable man, one who is smart and determined, could circumvent problems like this. But such a man is likely to have accumulated enough social status that his wife wouldn’t eat/pray/love him in the first place. Because a woman can take away money from a man in divorce court but there’s no way to expropriate his social status. If he is a doctor, an attorney, a tenured professor, etc., his ex-wife can get child support and alimony, but she no longer gets to tell her friends that she’s married to such a man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @S. Anonyia
    Also the crisis in Western masculinity can be attributed to 3 things: video games, porn, and lack of sunshine.

    Fix those issues and watch how quickly young men act like normal young men, and then young women respond in kind.

    Teenagers nowadays hardly date, it's ridiculous. They don't have any interests beyond the doors of their bedrooms. They have terrible social skills. And not just the nerds, it's everyone aside from perhaps the jocks.

    Also it's important to note young women didn't really start getting fat and sloppy en masse until the 2000s, a decade later than young men were already consumed with their video games.

    I work at a university full of young women. They are almost all slim to medium and more slim than medium I don’t think you old codgers ever get out and away from your computers to see the women you’re posting about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck
    Check back with those women in 5 years.
    , @Brutusale
    Well, this old codger is sitting in a coffee shop looking at about a dozen women, all under 40, and ONE of them has what I'd call a normal BMI, and she's a scrawny lesbian barista.

    Of the guys here, I'm probably the one in the worst shape; most of them are pretty trim. I squat a lot more than they do, though.

    You need to get out of the classroom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Probably the annoying thing a about all this has been the number of hard 5/soft 6 30 something female journos screeching about enforced monogamy as if they have a number of chads beating down their door.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @Paleo Liberal
    My mother was a friend of the late Carol Bly, Robert Bly's ex-wife, for about 60 years. I remember meeting her and her son not long before she died. She was rather dismissive of the Iron John men's movement thing, but had some fond memories of their time together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Bly

    My mother told me that when Robert and Carol were engaged, my father tried to talk Carol out of marrying Robert. As in "don't marry that Harvard poet". Interesting, because at the time one of my father's best friends was a poet he knew from Columbia, Allen Ginsberg. My father was very fond of Allen, but considered Allen to be stark raving bonkers. My father thought poets and writers were interesting people to hang out with, but not someone to actually marry. Another of my father's friends, Joan Vollmer, had already been killed by her writer husband, William Burroughs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer

    I read Iron John. Interesting in a sociological sense, but not impressive writing at all. Many in my family thought Carol Bly to be a far better writer than Robert Bly, but she never got famous.

    That’s fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing it. I saw Ginsburg around Boulder when he lived there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I only met Allen a few times, but he was always extremely nice to me every time I met him. Even though my father was a "straight" (non-Beat), Allen very much cherished the friendship they had. Of the Beats, Allen was by far the nicest. Children of Beats (according to the NY Times) said Allen was the ONLY Beat who was friendly to them. Considering how Allen acted towards me every time I saw him, that doesn't surprise me at all.

    At one point Allen was a bit obsessed with my grandmother (this was before I was born) in the way gay men are sometimes obsessed with straight women. Allen's mother Naomi was psychotic, so there was speculation that he looked upon my grandmother as the sane mother he never had.

    My grandmother thought Allen was sweet, but disapproved of my father hanging out with him. She thought he was mentally ill, and a bad influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Olorin
    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    You know, like they accuse men of doing to The Earth.

    Which is factual, which is why men in the 1900s became aware of conservation/ecology/environmentalism and shifted their systems thinking.

    Now we have to challenge women/blacks to do the same, but it'll be hard since they're not systems thinkers accustomed to organizing to get concrete things done. I have said for 30 years that if you have to move a sofa between a third-floor apartment and a truck at the curb, social studies professors/majors are the ones to absolutely exclude. If you want to get it moved, that is. If you want to talk about it getting moved, or analyze the dialectic of its movement, or deconstruct its power relations, they're the shizz.

    Here, from the #MenAreAwesome twitter thang:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS2mDuEWUAAequr.jpg

    Another dad isn’t a dad. He has no kids. If you read his posts carefully you can figure out he’s childless

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. J.Ross says: • Website
    @J1234

    He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.
     
    Peterson has become the most dangerous person on the right (to the left.) As a consequence, the difference between him and David Duke is now negligible (to the left.) As he destroys more leftist challengers in public, they just get angrier and angrier. To be fair, he hasn't been seriously challenged yet. Watch the pathetic performance and display by Michael Dyson at the Munk Debate in Canada the other day. I'm thinking about seeing him in Milwaukee in June, partly because I want to see what the protests are like.

    I am strongly tempted to use ME Dyson’s numinous and numerous Malkavian malaprops in all forthgoing comments, but I suspect that they would be rejected as outside the norms of human speech. Nevertheless his debt to the learned and venerable Oswald Bates is clear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. J.Ross says: • Website
    @S. Anonyia
    Also the crisis in Western masculinity can be attributed to 3 things: video games, porn, and lack of sunshine.

    Fix those issues and watch how quickly young men act like normal young men, and then young women respond in kind.

    Teenagers nowadays hardly date, it's ridiculous. They don't have any interests beyond the doors of their bedrooms. They have terrible social skills. And not just the nerds, it's everyone aside from perhaps the jocks.

    Also it's important to note young women didn't really start getting fat and sloppy en masse until the 2000s, a decade later than young men were already consumed with their video games.

    Dishonest. The thing to fix is divorce. Men are fleeing to escapism as a reaction and not initially.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. The sheer raw hatred being directed at Peterson (because Peterson has established a following and appears to be gaining otherwise apolitical younger men as fans) is startling — especially in the last few weeks. All screeds being published in liberal outlets about him are just long emotional pleas: “I don’t like Jordan Peterson. He freaks me out. If you are an ally I need you to join me in hating him.”

    That said, this is a really weak blog entry, as if Steve thought “how can I tie the hatred being directed at Peterson to my distaste for the immigration of blacks and muslims into the West?”

    The most off-putting Steve Sailer posts are when he’s throwing clear red meat to the bigots and nativists who fianancially support him.

    —black muslim guy

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Gurney,

    As a Muslim, how much of Frank Herbert's Dune do you think derives from Islam?

    I'm not trying to set up a rhetorical trap. I'm just interested in your opinion.

    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Yes, the "eternal enemy" bit is wrong and hyperbole.
    But there really is something "polygamous" (there's probably a better term) to the current cultural milieu of the last 20 years. And while it is worthwhile to look at what women say, we need really only look at what they do.

    When life circumstances permit, i.e. when a woman is sufficiently attractive, has free time, some disposable income, family and/or religious pressure is not constraining her, many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet - continually searching for better partners.
    For all the stupidity of the various Red Pill forums, they are on to something real with the concept of the "cock carousel". I've seen this behaviour in literally all of the age appropriate women in my extended family as well as many of the women I socialized with in college. A decade ago I just thought my family was dysfunctional (my mother's side is Appalachian) but I now realize there are much larger cultural forces at work on young Western women.

    It is foolish to ignore this, even if the people complaining about it are losers.

    Another pervert obsessing about the imaginary cock carousel. This obsession of all you celibate old codgers with other people’s sex lives is just porn and preversion.
    And where do those women find the cocks pray tell? You celibate old codgers seen to think that men need a date rape drug and viagra because men are so chaste and virtuous and paragons of morality they would never never go out hunting one night stands.

    Read your posts. They are laughable. If you can’t get any, that’s your problem.

    If you spend your life wanking about other people’s sex lives go ahead. Posting your porn fantasies makes it clear what pathetic losers you old codgers are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.

    Great comment.

    And the important question–the only question that actually excites their brains–is “how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies”.

    I wish they were as thoughtful as that. Instead they tell us that white men slowed down the march of civilization by refusing the contributions of others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    The most denounced line:

    “The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
     

    If fact, we sort of have that now, only worse. In the English-speaking world, the current law is, in effect, one-way state-enforced monogamy. That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, "child support" (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.

    Whenever there is a way to have the worst of both worlds, liberalism will find it and enforce it.

    No one pays child support for life. It’s just till the child is 18 or after another expensive court hearing 21 if the child
    (Not the mother) requests the father provide the grown child with the same education the father had.

    Parents are obligated by law to support their children.

    Alimony ceased to exist decades ago. Now it’s very rare and only for rehabilitation sliming. That’s a year of trade school, not years of college for the very rare women who married young, never worked a paid job and have no job skills.
    I very much doubt that all you men who think men should not support their children have children.

    If you did have children you wouldn’t be so adamantly against men supporting their children .

    No wife no kids celibate old codgers glued to their computer screens obsessed with other people’s sex lives that’s what most of the commenters in Unz are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "No one pays child support for life."
     
    Inasmuch as some payers do not outlive the obligation, they do indeed pay for life. Even among those who do outlive it, some go into debt to meet the obligation and spend the rest of their years paying that off, so same difference. It is clear you've never been faced with this kind of ferociously enforced obligation.

    "It’s just till the child is 18 or after another expensive court hearing 21 if the child (not the mother) requests the father provide the grown child with the same education the father had."
     
    Varies by jurisdiction. There are 50 common law jurisdictions in the US and another half dozen or so first-world common law jurisdictions elsewhere. They used to vary much more on marital law, but after the Great Rewriting in the 1970s and 1980s they converged on a few mostly destructive principles.

    The obligation often (for middle class+ divorcees) includes paying for post-secondary education, and other expenses that extend beyond an arbitrary birthday, even without any request by the child.

    "Parents are obligated by law to support their children."
     
    False. The custodial parent (usually the ex-wife) is not. This is explicit in US statutes.

    "Alimony ceased to exist decades ago."
     
    Also false. Maybe you should take it up with aajj who complained a few comments ago about the plight of her friend paying alimony for a ne'er-do-well ex.

    Alimony goes by different names in different jurisdictions. It's use has nominally diminished, but only in symmetry with the rise of non-child-supporting "child support", which is really just alimony with a less honest name, since, as already mentioned, it is statutorily forbidden that any inquiry be made as to whether it is actually spent for the benefit of the child.

    "I very much doubt that all you men who think men should not support their children have children. If you did have children you wouldn’t be so adamantly against men supporting their children ."
     
    No one said this. Well okay, YOU said it, but it is false. Such resentment as there is is against greedy exes who expropriate funds for themselves that could have supported the children. And inasmuch as such exes make it more likely that the kids will end up on public assistance (i.e., your taxes), you should resent it too.

    I am a parent and the main support of my offspring, financially and otherwise.

    "No wife no kids celibate old codgers glued to their computer screens obsessed with other people’s sex lives that’s what most of the commenters in Unz are."
     
    You may speak for yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Muslims allow for polygamy with limits, but actual polygamy is rare among Muslims.
    ...
    Most Muslim societies are less polygynous than contemporary Western societies are because they have less fornication, adultery, and divorce.

     

    It is common enough in urban Britain that everyone knows infidel women who have been taken as "pleasure wives" by Muslim men, often when the latter are working away from home. The local Sharia courts often hear petitions from convert women for divorce on the grounds of abandonment (i.e. hubby has gone home to his principal wife).

    Needless to say, the authorities turn a blind eye to offences of bigamy, as well as those defined by the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, if the perpetrator is Muslim.

    I suggest that Muslims in the West have just as much fornication and adultery as their host societies, but religious and social pressure prevents Muslim men from doing these things with their own women: so they use infidel women instead.

    That’s why they go after 13 year old British girls instead of after their own 13 year olds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    They go after their own kids too, this is widely known. There exists no mechanism whatsoever for a female abuse victim in their society to complain, let alone a child; it's the reason their servants keep committing suicide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Single motherhood is an alarmingly strong predictor of crime and major life problems.

    For every single mother there’s the father who abandoned the kids.

    And it’s oretty much confined to just 2 races, Hispanic and black.

    60 and 70 and 100 and 120 years ago blacks had the same high crime rate as they do today. And the parents were all in life long marriages then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @27 year old

    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.
     
    Don't be so hard on yourself, that's a much better comment than what Whiskey usually posts.

    A whore can’t be a whore without a man with whom to whore.

    But life long celibate 90 year old male virgin perverts who’ve been glued to their computers for the last 30 years don’t know it takes a man and a woman to have sex.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male
     
    Is it women, or just white women?

    Are Japanese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Japanese male?

    Are Chinese women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Chinese male?

    Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?

    Are Iraqi women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Iraqi male?

    etc., etc.

    Why bother replying to whiskey. I think his life long celibacy has damaged his mind. Just because he never got any, I don’t see why he should post his frustrations on the site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    More likely a lifetime of idiotic female shaming language that we’re now expected to take seriously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Brutusale says:
    @Olorin
    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    You know, like they accuse men of doing to The Earth.

    Which is factual, which is why men in the 1900s became aware of conservation/ecology/environmentalism and shifted their systems thinking.

    Now we have to challenge women/blacks to do the same, but it'll be hard since they're not systems thinkers accustomed to organizing to get concrete things done. I have said for 30 years that if you have to move a sofa between a third-floor apartment and a truck at the curb, social studies professors/majors are the ones to absolutely exclude. If you want to get it moved, that is. If you want to talk about it getting moved, or analyze the dialectic of its movement, or deconstruct its power relations, they're the shizz.

    Here, from the #MenAreAwesome twitter thang:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS2mDuEWUAAequr.jpg

    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    Exactly this. Sitting in Starbucks right now doing paperwork and reading iSteve, looking at 100% of the seats outside occupied by non-customers, hausfraus bringing the kids in to use the newly-minted “public” toilets, watching a wedding consultant and a financial advisor using the place as their office, listening to the employees complain about what a no-win situation corporate has put them in, and all I can think is “Nice little country. It’s ashamed what’s happened to it!”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @anon
    I work at a university full of young women. They are almost all slim to medium and more slim than medium I don’t think you old codgers ever get out and away from your computers to see the women you’re posting about.

    Check back with those women in 5 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Brutusale says:
    @anon
    I work at a university full of young women. They are almost all slim to medium and more slim than medium I don’t think you old codgers ever get out and away from your computers to see the women you’re posting about.

    Well, this old codger is sitting in a coffee shop looking at about a dozen women, all under 40, and ONE of them has what I’d call a normal BMI, and she’s a scrawny lesbian barista.

    Of the guys here, I’m probably the one in the worst shape; most of them are pretty trim. I squat a lot more than they do, though.

    You need to get out of the classroom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Yes, the "eternal enemy" bit is wrong and hyperbole.
    But there really is something "polygamous" (there's probably a better term) to the current cultural milieu of the last 20 years. And while it is worthwhile to look at what women say, we need really only look at what they do.

    When life circumstances permit, i.e. when a woman is sufficiently attractive, has free time, some disposable income, family and/or religious pressure is not constraining her, many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet - continually searching for better partners.
    For all the stupidity of the various Red Pill forums, they are on to something real with the concept of the "cock carousel". I've seen this behaviour in literally all of the age appropriate women in my extended family as well as many of the women I socialized with in college. A decade ago I just thought my family was dysfunctional (my mother's side is Appalachian) but I now realize there are much larger cultural forces at work on young Western women.

    It is foolish to ignore this, even if the people complaining about it are losers.

    When life circumstances permit… many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet – continually searching for better partners.

    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it’s not the whole story.

    Some, possibly even most, of what looks like cock carousel riding is girls giving up the pussy early in attempt to secure a committed relationship from a man that they would be delighted to settle down with, only to then be disappointed when he answers her “so what are we” text with “lol”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheodoreKaczynskiFan

    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it’s not the whole story.
     
    Absolutely, a corresponding threat on the other side of the equation is the decline of the shotgun wedding.
    , @Jack Hanson
    The flipside (and usually what leads to the lol text) is 20 something girls refusing to detach from the guys they claim are "just friends".

    Another case of women wanting to have it both ways and upset when it doesnt work out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @27 year old

    Heck yes feminists want polygamy. And most women are feminists. Middle and Upper class White women aka feminists are the natural and eternal enemy of the beta White male.
     
    Just because women don't like you doesn't mean they are the eternal enemy of White men.

    Knock it off with this loser bullshit.

    Slide into Rosie's DMs, you guys could really help eachother out

    Aaaaand cue the White Knight riding in on his White Stallion to shame the redpiller.

    Every damn time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Logan says:
    @27 year old
    And the real, um, bitch, of it is, that women would all be much happier in a system where each man was higher status than women -- because they could all land a high status man.

    they could all land a high status man.

    Not quite. But they could pretty much all “marry up,” to a man higher than their own status.

    But there would still be a limited number of high-status men based on the male hierarchy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @anon
    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?

    Politics is downstream of culture. I used to think that “The personal is political.” was just leftist sloganeering; but after my second time dropping acid I realized it was true.

    “Rome burning doesn’t affect meeeee!” – anon[257]

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >ted fan
    >the second time I dropped acid to analyze ideology
    I can't keep up with these kids, I'm just not weird enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @27 year old

    When life circumstances permit... many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet – continually searching for better partners.
     
    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it's not the whole story.

    Some, possibly even most, of what looks like cock carousel riding is girls giving up the pussy early in attempt to secure a committed relationship from a man that they would be delighted to settle down with, only to then be disappointed when he answers her "so what are we" text with "lol".

    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it’s not the whole story.

    Absolutely, a corresponding threat on the other side of the equation is the decline of the shotgun wedding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @istevefan
    I think Sailer has brought this up before that about 6 million American blacks migrated North during the early 20th century. And he pointed out how those 6 million blacks totally transformed several major Northern cities such as Detroit.

    Someone in Europe has to absorb this lesson of history. If 6 million blacks can transform most of our Northern cities, what the hell do they think a hundred million Africans are going to do to Europe's cities?

    One of the biggest miracles to me is, that Europeans don’t get, that there are serious racial tensions/ problems in the US.
    I d o not get t this. Murray1, Murray2 (the younger Murray) Sailer, Robert Putnam, Sailer, Unz, Sailer, Collier, Sailer (you got it since ages, I know, but I could not resist pointing out the clarity and the density of Steve Sailer’s arguments – – they all, all this men should be very well known and praised nd studied closely, together with ann Coulter and Camille Paglia…: BUT…they’re fought against as the forces from the dark instead.

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas – the young…. – Murray will rock the 02 stadium at june the 16th, I hope, -maybe that’ll make a diference…

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas
     
    Harris is a Jew who refuses to talk about race,even though he knows about it, explicitly because it might cause white nationalism (the most loathsome sort, according to him), Peterson is a coward who also refuses to talk about race probably also because of his hatred for (non-Jewish) nationalism and Douglas Murray brushes on race in his discussions of immigrant problems yet refuses to mention it explicitly and condemns nationalists (although since he's a homo, it's not like one should hope for a very high moral character in him). So I'm not sure what exactly you expect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. sabril says:
    @anon
    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?

    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?

    I’m not 90 or a virgin, but I am a middle-aged man who is sexually attracted to women in their 20s so I guess that makes me a “pervert” by feminist reckoning.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct — and how it is channeled — is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society. Single motherhood; teen pregnancy; polygamy; cuckoldry; eschewing marriage in favor of the cock carousel; these are a few examples.

    This is hardly a surprise as the instincts to survive and reproduce are the big driver of human behavior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    At least you admit who you are. There are plenty of women your age and there's no law that says that you cannot date women older than you - the past has been full of injustices to women who had to deal with hoary old men like yourself. Its only fair that you try to learn to date someone twenty years older than you.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct — and how it is channeled — is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society."
     
    True.

    There are many variations of anon's whinge about elderly-perverts-nosing-into-others'-sex-lives, yet...

    Sex and death: the two most significant things a person can do. Making life and taking life really matter more than words can express. And therefore they very rightly do concern society and its most experienced members, the elders.

    "My sex life is none of your beeswax" couldn't be less true, even if we weren't sharing a welfare state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @sabril

    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?
     
    I'm not 90 or a virgin, but I am a middle-aged man who is sexually attracted to women in their 20s so I guess that makes me a "pervert" by feminist reckoning.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct -- and how it is channeled -- is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society. Single motherhood; teen pregnancy; polygamy; cuckoldry; eschewing marriage in favor of the cock carousel; these are a few examples.

    This is hardly a surprise as the instincts to survive and reproduce are the big driver of human behavior.

    At least you admit who you are. There are plenty of women your age and there’s no law that says that you cannot date women older than you – the past has been full of injustices to women who had to deal with hoary old men like yourself. Its only fair that you try to learn to date someone twenty years older than you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >sexuality
    >fairness
    Okay. There definitely is a law prohibiting women from dating men shorter than themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anon
    That’s why they go after 13 year old British girls instead of after their own 13 year olds.

    They go after their own kids too, this is widely known. There exists no mechanism whatsoever for a female abuse victim in their society to complain, let alone a child; it’s the reason their servants keep committing suicide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anonymous
    At least you admit who you are. There are plenty of women your age and there's no law that says that you cannot date women older than you - the past has been full of injustices to women who had to deal with hoary old men like yourself. Its only fair that you try to learn to date someone twenty years older than you.

    >sexuality
    >fairness
    Okay. There definitely is a law prohibiting women from dating men shorter than themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. J.Ross says: • Website
    @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Politics is downstream of culture. I used to think that "The personal is political." was just leftist sloganeering; but after my second time dropping acid I realized it was true.

    "Rome burning doesn't affect meeeee!" - anon[257]

    >ted fan
    >the second time I dropped acid to analyze ideology
    I can’t keep up with these kids, I’m just not weird enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @aajj
    That's actually not true. My friend Wendy is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, never helped with the kids, never allowed Wendy out of his sight and was in and out of rehab so many times. Is she happy now? Hell yes...and happy to pay alimony to have him gone.

    Erm … Wendy’s story is confirmation, not contradiction. The law obliges the the one with more (identifiable) money to support the one with less (identifiable) money. Usually the husband is the former, and the wife is the latter, but the reason I keep using the word “usually” is because of cases like your friend Wendy. My sympathies to her, BTW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. sabril says:

    There are plenty of women your age and there’s no law that says that you cannot date women older than you

    Lol, I am married to a woman who is roughly my age. Funny that you assume I am single.

    Its only fair that you try to learn to date someone twenty years older than you.

    Do you really want to make things fair? Because I have a feeling that you have no interest in getting rid of the many advantages that women enjoy over men.

    Anyway, if I were single again, I would date only women in their 20s which is no problem for me since I am physically fit and am a successful professional. One of the few advantages men enjoy is that we don’t automatically suffer a massive drop in sexual marketplace value in our 30s like women do. Of course feminists can’t stand men having any advantages at all, even if those advantages come at a price that feminists are not interested in paying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. DFH says:
    @Dieter Kief
    One of the biggest miracles to me is, that Europeans don't get, that there are serious racial tensions/ problems in the US.
    I d o not get t this. Murray1, Murray2 (the younger Murray) Sailer, Robert Putnam, Sailer, Unz, Sailer, Collier, Sailer (you got it since ages, I know, but I could not resist pointing out the clarity and the density of Steve Sailer's arguments - - they all, all this men should be very well known and praised nd studied closely, together with ann Coulter and Camille Paglia...: BUT...they're fought against as the forces from the dark instead.

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas - the young.... - Murray will rock the 02 stadium at june the 16th, I hope, -maybe that'll make a diference...

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas

    Harris is a Jew who refuses to talk about race,even though he knows about it, explicitly because it might cause white nationalism (the most loathsome sort, according to him), Peterson is a coward who also refuses to talk about race probably also because of his hatred for (non-Jewish) nationalism and Douglas Murray brushes on race in his discussions of immigrant problems yet refuses to mention it explicitly and condemns nationalists (although since he’s a homo, it’s not like one should hope for a very high moral character in him). So I’m not sure what exactly you expect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    I know, that two of them have read and understood and - praised even, The Bell Curve. And they side with Murray (The Strange Death of Europe - excellent book!), who understands, that unregulated immigration is dangerous (and destructive even) for modern societies. - Now - given what you hear usually about those things, the 02-event could mark a big difference. I hope so, I have to admit.

    Btw.: The Bell Curve has racial implicatins, too, and Harris as well as Peterson understands this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. L Woods says:
    @anon
    Why bother replying to whiskey. I think his life long celibacy has damaged his mind. Just because he never got any, I don’t see why he should post his frustrations on the site.

    More likely a lifetime of idiotic female shaming language that we’re now expected to take seriously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Buzz Mohawk
    That's fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing it. I saw Ginsburg around Boulder when he lived there.

    I only met Allen a few times, but he was always extremely nice to me every time I met him. Even though my father was a “straight” (non-Beat), Allen very much cherished the friendship they had. Of the Beats, Allen was by far the nicest. Children of Beats (according to the NY Times) said Allen was the ONLY Beat who was friendly to them. Considering how Allen acted towards me every time I saw him, that doesn’t surprise me at all.

    At one point Allen was a bit obsessed with my grandmother (this was before I was born) in the way gay men are sometimes obsessed with straight women. Allen’s mother Naomi was psychotic, so there was speculation that he looked upon my grandmother as the sane mother he never had.

    My grandmother thought Allen was sweet, but disapproved of my father hanging out with him. She thought he was mentally ill, and a bad influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I've always empathized with Ginsberg regarding the crazy mother, because mine got that way progressively from about my tenth year, when she started becoming violently drunk and abusive to the point that I had to spend some nights out in the woods behind the house -- as a little kid.

    A policeman in Boulder, on one of many calls to my mother's home, once suggested that I could have her committed. I was by then eighteen, living alone with her, and legally able to sign the papers. She was really out of her mind half the time then, and not all there the rest of the time. I moved out and did not follow the cop's advice, but I seem to recall that Allen actually did put his mother in a mental hospital.

    Life. LOL

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    This may have been after your Dad's time, but the last of the Beat poets:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAd33J9-po
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @anon
    No one pays child support for life. It’s just till the child is 18 or after another expensive court hearing 21 if the child
    (Not the mother) requests the father provide the grown child with the same education the father had.

    Parents are obligated by law to support their children.

    Alimony ceased to exist decades ago. Now it’s very rare and only for rehabilitation sliming. That’s a year of trade school, not years of college for the very rare women who married young, never worked a paid job and have no job skills.
    I very much doubt that all you men who think men should not support their children have children.

    If you did have children you wouldn’t be so adamantly against men supporting their children .

    No wife no kids celibate old codgers glued to their computer screens obsessed with other people’s sex lives that’s what most of the commenters in Unz are.

    “No one pays child support for life.”

    Inasmuch as some payers do not outlive the obligation, they do indeed pay for life. Even among those who do outlive it, some go into debt to meet the obligation and spend the rest of their years paying that off, so same difference. It is clear you’ve never been faced with this kind of ferociously enforced obligation.

    “It’s just till the child is 18 or after another expensive court hearing 21 if the child (not the mother) requests the father provide the grown child with the same education the father had.”

    Varies by jurisdiction. There are 50 common law jurisdictions in the US and another half dozen or so first-world common law jurisdictions elsewhere. They used to vary much more on marital law, but after the Great Rewriting in the 1970s and 1980s they converged on a few mostly destructive principles.

    The obligation often (for middle class+ divorcees) includes paying for post-secondary education, and other expenses that extend beyond an arbitrary birthday, even without any request by the child.

    “Parents are obligated by law to support their children.”

    False. The custodial parent (usually the ex-wife) is not. This is explicit in US statutes.

    “Alimony ceased to exist decades ago.”

    Also false. Maybe you should take it up with aajj who complained a few comments ago about the plight of her friend paying alimony for a ne’er-do-well ex.

    Alimony goes by different names in different jurisdictions. It’s use has nominally diminished, but only in symmetry with the rise of non-child-supporting “child support”, which is really just alimony with a less honest name, since, as already mentioned, it is statutorily forbidden that any inquiry be made as to whether it is actually spent for the benefit of the child.

    “I very much doubt that all you men who think men should not support their children have children. If you did have children you wouldn’t be so adamantly against men supporting their children .”

    No one said this. Well okay, YOU said it, but it is false. Such resentment as there is is against greedy exes who expropriate funds for themselves that could have supported the children. And inasmuch as such exes make it more likely that the kids will end up on public assistance (i.e., your taxes), you should resent it too.

    I am a parent and the main support of my offspring, financially and otherwise.

    “No wife no kids celibate old codgers glued to their computer screens obsessed with other people’s sex lives that’s what most of the commenters in Unz are.”

    You may speak for yourself.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.

    Pro comment.

    pretty much all the “liberals”–have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. …
    … to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years … just sort of happened. It’s free. Or “just is”.

    Ann Coulter had a funny line like, liberals “have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter.”

    Very true. Those are micro- examples of the macro- problem: they don’t understand that civilization is elective, not guaranteed.

    “If you never bother to ask the question, why? You’ll never know the answer.”

    I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that a very large (and increasing) number of people are simply not interested in the Why’s and Wherefore’s of their existence (or anyone else’s). They just don’t care.

    A wiser civilization than ours would reserve an area of non-strategic land where everyone who doesn’t want to contribute to civilization could live in peace (from the civilized) in their non-civilized ways. Most of them would probably very suddenly make the connection between civilization and all the stuff that they like. Then they can be readmitted on probation. The very small number who really do prefer the wilderness can live there, but they probably won’t be very tolerant of civilization’s malcontents. The word “savagery” literally means someone who lives in the forest. But there is a reason that it has come to have its other meanings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Gurney Halleck
    The sheer raw hatred being directed at Peterson (because Peterson has established a following and appears to be gaining otherwise apolitical younger men as fans) is startling -- especially in the last few weeks. All screeds being published in liberal outlets about him are just long emotional pleas: "I don't like Jordan Peterson. He freaks me out. If you are an ally I need you to join me in hating him."

    That said, this is a really weak blog entry, as if Steve thought "how can I tie the hatred being directed at Peterson to my distaste for the immigration of blacks and muslims into the West?"

    The most off-putting Steve Sailer posts are when he's throwing clear red meat to the bigots and nativists who fianancially support him.


    ---black muslim guy

    Gurney,

    As a Muslim, how much of Frank Herbert’s Dune do you think derives from Islam?

    I’m not trying to set up a rhetorical trap. I’m just interested in your opinion.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Paleo Liberal
    I only met Allen a few times, but he was always extremely nice to me every time I met him. Even though my father was a "straight" (non-Beat), Allen very much cherished the friendship they had. Of the Beats, Allen was by far the nicest. Children of Beats (according to the NY Times) said Allen was the ONLY Beat who was friendly to them. Considering how Allen acted towards me every time I saw him, that doesn't surprise me at all.

    At one point Allen was a bit obsessed with my grandmother (this was before I was born) in the way gay men are sometimes obsessed with straight women. Allen's mother Naomi was psychotic, so there was speculation that he looked upon my grandmother as the sane mother he never had.

    My grandmother thought Allen was sweet, but disapproved of my father hanging out with him. She thought he was mentally ill, and a bad influence.

    I’ve always empathized with Ginsberg regarding the crazy mother, because mine got that way progressively from about my tenth year, when she started becoming violently drunk and abusive to the point that I had to spend some nights out in the woods behind the house — as a little kid.

    A policeman in Boulder, on one of many calls to my mother’s home, once suggested that I could have her committed. I was by then eighteen, living alone with her, and legally able to sign the papers. She was really out of her mind half the time then, and not all there the rest of the time. I moved out and did not follow the cop’s advice, but I seem to recall that Allen actually did put his mother in a mental hospital.

    Life. LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    My father met Naomi a few times. I think one time she cooked a Passover seder for Allen and my father. I asked my father what Naomi was like. Apparently, she didn't have any psychotic episodes at the time. My father said Naomi "held it together", whatever that means.

    I am sorry about you growing up in such a horrible environment. Sometimes I felt bad that my parents were not as warm and loving as the parents of many of my friends, or as warm and loving as my in-laws. OTOH, they were not really abusive either. They cared about their kids, but didn't always know how to show it. I should feel lucky I didn't grow up in an abusive environment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @sabril

    Why are these 90 year old male virgin perverts so interested in other people’s sex lives?
     
    I'm not 90 or a virgin, but I am a middle-aged man who is sexually attracted to women in their 20s so I guess that makes me a "pervert" by feminist reckoning.

    Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct -- and how it is channeled -- is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society. Single motherhood; teen pregnancy; polygamy; cuckoldry; eschewing marriage in favor of the cock carousel; these are a few examples.

    This is hardly a surprise as the instincts to survive and reproduce are the big driver of human behavior.

    “Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct — and how it is channeled — is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society.”

    True.

    There are many variations of anon‘s whinge about elderly-perverts-nosing-into-others’-sex-lives, yet…

    Sex and death: the two most significant things a person can do. Making life and taking life really matter more than words can express. And therefore they very rightly do concern society and its most experienced members, the elders.

    “My sex life is none of your beeswax” couldn’t be less true, even if we weren’t sharing a welfare state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    “My sex life is none of your beeswax” couldn’t be less true, even if we weren’t sharing a welfare state.
     
    Agreed, and anyway, you can bet that this 'live and let live' argument will go right out the window when the topic under discussion is realistic sex robots for men. Because the real feminist agenda is to maximize female sexual power and options while minimizing male sexual power and options.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Buzz Mohawk
    I've always empathized with Ginsberg regarding the crazy mother, because mine got that way progressively from about my tenth year, when she started becoming violently drunk and abusive to the point that I had to spend some nights out in the woods behind the house -- as a little kid.

    A policeman in Boulder, on one of many calls to my mother's home, once suggested that I could have her committed. I was by then eighteen, living alone with her, and legally able to sign the papers. She was really out of her mind half the time then, and not all there the rest of the time. I moved out and did not follow the cop's advice, but I seem to recall that Allen actually did put his mother in a mental hospital.

    Life. LOL

    My father met Naomi a few times. I think one time she cooked a Passover seder for Allen and my father. I asked my father what Naomi was like. Apparently, she didn’t have any psychotic episodes at the time. My father said Naomi “held it together”, whatever that means.

    I am sorry about you growing up in such a horrible environment. Sometimes I felt bad that my parents were not as warm and loving as the parents of many of my friends, or as warm and loving as my in-laws. OTOH, they were not really abusive either. They cared about their kids, but didn’t always know how to show it. I should feel lucky I didn’t grow up in an abusive environment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @27 year old

    When life circumstances permit... many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet – continually searching for better partners.
     
    This is true, and there is a lot of that but it's not the whole story.

    Some, possibly even most, of what looks like cock carousel riding is girls giving up the pussy early in attempt to secure a committed relationship from a man that they would be delighted to settle down with, only to then be disappointed when he answers her "so what are we" text with "lol".

    The flipside (and usually what leads to the lol text) is 20 something girls refusing to detach from the guys they claim are “just friends”.

    Another case of women wanting to have it both ways and upset when it doesnt work out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Olorin
    Women/blacks/my-group view civilization as its most domesticated occupants: they think of civilization as naturally occurring, there for them to exploit.

    You know, like they accuse men of doing to The Earth.

    Which is factual, which is why men in the 1900s became aware of conservation/ecology/environmentalism and shifted their systems thinking.

    Now we have to challenge women/blacks to do the same, but it'll be hard since they're not systems thinkers accustomed to organizing to get concrete things done. I have said for 30 years that if you have to move a sofa between a third-floor apartment and a truck at the curb, social studies professors/majors are the ones to absolutely exclude. If you want to get it moved, that is. If you want to talk about it getting moved, or analyze the dialectic of its movement, or deconstruct its power relations, they're the shizz.

    Here, from the #MenAreAwesome twitter thang:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS2mDuEWUAAequr.jpg

    This is an excellent post with an excellent photo of an excellent poster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Buzz Mohawk
    Does everything repeat? Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation's Jordan Peterson, I think.

    It's the same message, as I recall: Be a man, dammit. Honestly that's about all I remember. Oh, and something about myths, legends and old stories that teach us what men are.

    This issue, like everything else now, has been around a long time. Every single, stupid, social issue today was already dealt with at least three decades ago. Now it's all just being used for other people's benefit (again!).

    https://www.amazon.com/Iron-John-Book-about-Men/dp/0306824264

    @2 – Thirty years ago, when I thought I needed to grow up, I read a book called Iron John, by a man named Robert Bly, who was my generation’s Jordan Peterson, I think.

    Holy shit! If I could upvote you, dude, I would do so. This is dead-on accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @AnotherDad

    Western civilization seems to have been built on socially-enforced monogamy.
     
    All civilization is based on socially-enforced monogamy.

    Civilization is men being able to cooperate enough to avoid spending all their time and effort fighting and mate guarding and thus being able to devote their efforts to productive labor.


    One thing i've realized as an old guy, watching these debates about sexual morality and convention roil society is that many people--and pretty much all the "liberals"--have absolutely no idea how civilization exists and functions. Many middle class conservatives have some sort of rough heuristic sense that civilization is fundamentally a product of marriage/monogamy--loyalty to commitments, doing your duty, raising kids who can do the same. But most liberals despite all the fancy degrees and "education" just have no idea what's going on.

    And in fact the liberal academics--making their careers in the social sciences--are among the most clueless. Amazingly--despite their chosen profession in "social science"--they never seem to have asked themselves, "why do we have civilization?" "what distinguishes places like Europe and China and India with long histories of civilization from say sub-saharan Africa where not much happened? or even from the tribal Arab world?"

    As far as i can tell, to the liberal and particularly the feminist, all the good stuff that Western man produced over the past several thousand years ... just sort of happened. It's free. Or "just is". And the important question--the only question that actually excites their brains--is "how can women/blacks/my-group get more of the goodies".

    If you never bother to ask the question, why? You'll never know the answer.

    Gold-box stuff here, Dad.

    The hallmark of the degenerate Left’s mindset is ingratitude.

    Those Christian forefathers (and mothers) who built up the Church, and then a civilization floodlit with artistic expression suffused with a Christian worldview — they’re reduced to oppressors, to be demonized and denigrated and deconstructed at every turn, thereby deracinating and demeaning their heirs.

    Those grunts who this very day put food on your table, who keep your lights on and your water running, who build and maintain and police the roads — they’re always unworthy of catching your eye, and often beneath your contempt.

    It’s a mindset that wallows in its unearned privilege and prosperity, then turns and spits in the faces of those made — and make — those blessings possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @SteeleyJew
    "Are Jewish women the natural and eternal enemy of the beta Jewish male?"

    YES! Especially their mothers.

    Any beta Jew with half a heart will tell you.

    I know you don’t need this linked, but for other folks:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you for the Steely Dan. Listen to their lyrics, on any of their songs. Can anyone today in music write anything 1/4 as intelligent? Steely Dan was on the Billboard Charts - just look at the crap today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @anon
    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40

    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40

    I rather doubt that. Do they have beards?

    And this is where people get things totally wrong. Black women look tough. But when pressed, they fold like a house of spades and clubs.

    Asian women look like doormats from the outside. But anyone who’s gotten to know his share knows that underneath they are tough, tough, tough. They have a lot of fight in them– they just don’t take it out on their menfolk, as women in America and the “Nordic” fringe often do. (Their kids are another story.)

    Somali women seem to lean more toward the Asian model than the West African one. And why not? Mogadishu is actually closer to Djakarta and Saigon than it is to Dakar. And Senegal is closer to Iowa than to much of Somalia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I've had more trouble with black women than black men. I'm a physically large guy so other guys leave me alone, but not black women. They do that passive-aggressive thing where they smile in your face while knifing you in the back. I assume this doesn't work on black guys because they just hit their women in these situations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. sabril says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "Anyway, the answer to your question is that the human sexual instinct — and how it is channeled — is central to the success or failure of civilization. Many sexual behaviors, if repeated on a large scale, are extremely destructive to society."
     
    True.

    There are many variations of anon's whinge about elderly-perverts-nosing-into-others'-sex-lives, yet...

    Sex and death: the two most significant things a person can do. Making life and taking life really matter more than words can express. And therefore they very rightly do concern society and its most experienced members, the elders.

    "My sex life is none of your beeswax" couldn't be less true, even if we weren't sharing a welfare state.

    “My sex life is none of your beeswax” couldn’t be less true, even if we weren’t sharing a welfare state.

    Agreed, and anyway, you can bet that this ‘live and let live’ argument will go right out the window when the topic under discussion is realistic sex robots for men. Because the real feminist agenda is to maximize female sexual power and options while minimizing male sexual power and options.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Dissident says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Does everything repeat?
     
    As Marx said, first time tragedy, second time farce.

    But with Bly and Peterson, it seems to be the other way around. Bly had men go out in the forest and bang drums to feel more manly. Seems rather cartoonish.

    I used to confuse Robert Bly with Robert W Bly. Both were in the writing instruction business. But Robert W. was more workaday, concentrating on business correspondence and presentations. In other words, doing a man's job. With less noise.

    Bly had men go out in the forest and bang drums to feel more manly.

    Sounds an awful lot like what was at least one of the signature antics of a certain individual who at least for a time had been closely aligned with and promoted by “Alt-Right leader” Richard Spencer. Perhaps someone here is familiar with the individual I am referring-to, as I cannot recall his name. He is infamous for an Internet posting he made to some forum in which he boasted of how easy it is for him to “fu—k” (i.e., bugger, in the literal, sexual sense of the word) as many carnally appealing men as he could possibly desire and how many such tender creatures (“with daddy issues”, he touchingly added) he had so conferred his wholesome affections upon. The “antics” I referred-to of this individual involved a whole neo-pagan shtick, the rituals of which were said to have included groups of men, purportedly bringing children along as well, romping around naked in the forest.

    Perhaps such credentials were seen as a feature and not a bug by the Nazi-LARPing Spencer who had promoted the proudly buggering neo-pagan as an exemplar of healthy masculinity for young men. In fairness, it must also be noted that the aforementioned neo-Pagan Sodomite (the one whose name I cannot recall) is also quoted as having made the statement that young men who find themselves erotically attracted to the same sex would do well, before embracing a homosexual identity and lifestyle, to first honestly rule-out the possibility of embracing heterosexuality. That, certainly, would have been to his credit.

    Let me add here (and I will bring this back to the topic of the NYT article, I promise) my own contention that even when a same-sex-attracted individual is either unwilling or unable to change his orientation, it does not mean that a life of the gruesome, inordinately disease-promoting, demeaning act of buggery must be his lot. At the very least, non-penetrative alternatives such as the egalitarian FROT* are FAR safer, painless and offer a number of other distinct advantages over using the ano-rectal orifice for a purpose it clearly could hardly be more ill-suited for. Moreover, as long as the alternative is either any kind of homosexual behavior or fornication or adultery of any kind, then celibacy, at least as an ideal to strive toward, should never be dismissed lightly.

    Note how individuals such as the author of the NYT piece on Peterson apparently see absolutely no contradiction between claiming egalitarianism as perhaps their single most fundamental and sacred principle, on one hand and incessantly championing buggery, on the other. (Is there any sex act less egalitarian than ano-rectal buggery?) Hardly surprising, though, when one considers all the other glaring contradictions, hypocrisies and double-standards of this bunch– the great arbiters of what constitutes “OK” thought.

    *See man2manalliance DOT org but note graphic adult content.

    Incidentally, is Jordan Peterson on record as having expressed any views on homosexuality? A web search I did not long ago did not reveal anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Janus says:
    @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    My idea has been that in a no-fault divorce custody should automatically be granted to the parent not filing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. SMK says: • Website
    @Whiskey
    If course women are the eternal enemy. Stop White Knighting. Women are the shock troops of gun bans, anti White politics, rapefugees, open borders, prohibituon, the drug war, WWT, World War Gay, colors of benetton, and World WarIncel now I guess since Mary Wollstonecroft. It's Moms Demand Action on the universal White make disarmament act. So every day can be Reginald Denny Day. White dudes are not screaming take my gun. It's all White women. The inevitable hate for men their equal.

    Just noticing. If White women acted like the women of Japan we would have the politics of Japan and it's borders . We have the Liz be cause White women love it like a C W Show.

    When Israel has recent wars where Joe Average has killed some one it's politics drift rightward. During long peace they go left. As predictable AmAnda Palmers love poem to Dhokar Tsarnaev.

    You can learn things when you are past 27.

    You’re psychotic, a misogynist lunatic. I suggest you stop visiting a “Voice for men” and other MRA websites and reading all the articles and comments by your fellow lunatic misogynists.” White women -all of them, most of them, including the majority of married white women who voted for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton?- are to blame for everything. And anyone who disagrees is a “mangina” and “white knight.” Yes, if we exterminated all or most white women and also the girls, apparently, before they turned into evil white women, all of our problems, as you see them, would be solved and the U.S. would be a Muslim-like utopia. White male left-liberals, white male Democrats, white male “neocons” and “conservatism, Inc.” apparatchiks, billionaire white male donors, gentile and Jewish, black males, “Hispanic” males,” Islamic males, etc. have no power and influence. They’re merely the puppets of evil white females!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Stan Adams
    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:
    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    "You're taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?"

    Scott Adams mocked Bly back in 1992:

    http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-03-08

    “You’re taking advice from a *poet* on how to be manly?”

    Homer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @DFH

    Harris and Peterson and Douglas
     
    Harris is a Jew who refuses to talk about race,even though he knows about it, explicitly because it might cause white nationalism (the most loathsome sort, according to him), Peterson is a coward who also refuses to talk about race probably also because of his hatred for (non-Jewish) nationalism and Douglas Murray brushes on race in his discussions of immigrant problems yet refuses to mention it explicitly and condemns nationalists (although since he's a homo, it's not like one should hope for a very high moral character in him). So I'm not sure what exactly you expect.

    I know, that two of them have read and understood and – praised even, The Bell Curve. And they side with Murray (The Strange Death of Europe – excellent book!), who understands, that unregulated immigration is dangerous (and destructive even) for modern societies. – Now – given what you hear usually about those things, the 02-event could mark a big difference. I hope so, I have to admit.

    Btw.: The Bell Curve has racial implicatins, too, and Harris as well as Peterson understands this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @aajj
    You are way off. I am a divorced woman for very good reason. ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse, mental abuse. I don't know of one woman who has left her spouse just for the hell of it. When you see women leave, they are leaving because of deep unhappiness and often fear. This is not about feminism. It is about the ability of a human being to leave a unbearable situation for a better life.

    Also, one of my friends is paying alimony to her ex husband who never worked, was an alcoholic, physical abuser and was in an out of rehab. I didn't get alimony. In Texas, there is no alimony.

    I have known women leave with the clothes on their backs to escape a bad situation

    Also, women work and own property or co own property, so "they don't get the house". They can "buy" their former spouse's share of the house. Or they get 50% of the assets acquired during a marriage (that they worked for and earned). You really don't have a clue. If you want to know why women leave a marriage...ask a woman.

    I will tell you this. My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce. He wanted to see if the new relationship worked out. Well....HELL NO!!! I filed. I had no job, no skills and have not remarried nor do I want to. Yes, women are the ones filing because most of the time men won't do it. Women have opportunity now to no longer put up with intolerable situations.

    Solution? Spouses (men and women) be pleasant to be around, considerate, loyal, kind, honest and work hard to make each other happy and feel safe.

    Now I think the thing you should know is happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands

    “happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands”

    Do we have an absolute right to be happy then, and a right to create unhappiness in others if that’s what it takes? A friend of my child killed herself (age 16) when her parents split up. Kids of divorce do worse (on average) than kids of intact families.

    “My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce” – OK, I can see you have a perfectly valid complaint (he sounds a bit like my dad, actually).

    “ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse”

    Of the (UK) couples we know who’ve split, in every single case it was the woman’s decision (except the one who was thrown out after her husband discovered her affair). And none of these were alcoholics, abusers or gamblers, just guys who no longer generated ‘good feelings’ in their wives. One had been made bankrupt when his business failed – talk about ‘for better, for worse‘!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I know one woman who abandoned her family because she wanted to be a writer. Another who quit because she wanted to be an artist. Both had children. Pure selfishness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Flip

    Little known tidbit, for your edification – this guy was in another band BEFORE Wings!
     
    Yeah, the Quarrymen were pretty good.

    It’s really great to know that this joke has been extended – may be good for another 20 years or so, until people (like me) forget who The Quarrymen were.

    ;-}

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @AnotherDad
    I! AM! WHISKEY! Hear me roar.

    I was thinking of this in the Spartacus sense, per Jim Don Bob, but that works too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Jim Don Bob
    No! I! AM! WHISKEY!

    Thank you.

    I just need one reader to get it, that’s all. ;-}

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Paleo Liberal
    My mother was a friend of the late Carol Bly, Robert Bly's ex-wife, for about 60 years. I remember meeting her and her son not long before she died. She was rather dismissive of the Iron John men's movement thing, but had some fond memories of their time together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Bly

    My mother told me that when Robert and Carol were engaged, my father tried to talk Carol out of marrying Robert. As in "don't marry that Harvard poet". Interesting, because at the time one of my father's best friends was a poet he knew from Columbia, Allen Ginsberg. My father was very fond of Allen, but considered Allen to be stark raving bonkers. My father thought poets and writers were interesting people to hang out with, but not someone to actually marry. Another of my father's friends, Joan Vollmer, had already been killed by her writer husband, William Burroughs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer

    I read Iron John. Interesting in a sociological sense, but not impressive writing at all. Many in my family thought Carol Bly to be a far better writer than Robert Bly, but she never got famous.

    That is really something, that your Dad was in the midst of the Beat poets. I only know anything about it from 5 1/2 minutes or so of reading for background for 10,003 Maniacs, which is about the song Hey, Jack Kerouac off of the 10,000 Maniacs great In my Tribe album from the early ’90′s.

    I’ll just put the vid here. I would imagine you, or even your Dad, P.L. would have heard this song, but if not, please do. Natalie Merchant is no Michael Stipe (REM), as in we don’t need no steeenking lyrics. She belts out the lyrics powerfully and annunciates like, I dunno, a beat poet? So, I don’t need to include them, but they cover all of your Dad’s friends.

    (The line about “like Mary down in Mexico on All Saints Day” has something to do with Burrough’s killing of his wife down in ole Mehico.) What a nutty crowd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    My father liked the younger early Beats -- Allen Ginsberg, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac.

    He thought Allen was quite mentally ill, and he thought Jack Kerouac was horribly misogynistic. One time my father saw me reading On the Road, and called it the most misogynistic book he had ever read. He also told me the Karlo Marx character was Allen Ginsberg.

    My father despised the older Beats. He called William Burroughs "pure evil". My father was a friend of Joan Vollmer, after all. My father also despised Dave Kemmer for his pedophilic pursuit of Lucian Carr.

    I never saw the movie Kill Your Darlings, which was based on Allen's interpretation of Lucian Carr killing Dave Kemmer. When the movie came out, my father was long gone. Lucian Carr's son wrote a scathing rebuttal, saying the movie was complete hogwash.

    In fact, my father told me a lot about the killing. My father was out of town at the time, but he got a letter from Lucian Carr that was sent a day or two before the killing, and my father got the letter after the killing. My father's account was pretty much identical to what Lucian Carr's son said: Dave Kemmer was chasing Lucian Carr all over the country, to the point where Lucian Carr tried to commit suicide to get away from him. At the end, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac were going to head to France, during WW II, to get away from Dave Kemmer. In the letter, Carr says he hoped Kemmer didn't find out about the plan, but that he expected Kemmer to be waiting for him in France surrounded by a bunch of young French boys.

    As it turned out, Kemmer did find out about the planned trip by Carr and Kerouac. That led to an argument, in which Carr killed Kemmer. Carr, who was still a juvenile at the time of the killing, was locked up for two years. The judge was convinced that Carr killed Kemmer to escape from a horrible predator, and so gave a very light sentence.

    My father had a number of conversations with Carr about Kemmer before the killing. My father's opinion was that Carr was desperately trying to escape Kemmer.


    There is a famous incident that took place later involving my father, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, but I can't tell the incident because it would reveal who I really am. Being a true Liberal living in Madison, Wisconsin, I can't have people finding out I post on a right-wing site like Unz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Paleo Liberal
    I only met Allen a few times, but he was always extremely nice to me every time I met him. Even though my father was a "straight" (non-Beat), Allen very much cherished the friendship they had. Of the Beats, Allen was by far the nicest. Children of Beats (according to the NY Times) said Allen was the ONLY Beat who was friendly to them. Considering how Allen acted towards me every time I saw him, that doesn't surprise me at all.

    At one point Allen was a bit obsessed with my grandmother (this was before I was born) in the way gay men are sometimes obsessed with straight women. Allen's mother Naomi was psychotic, so there was speculation that he looked upon my grandmother as the sane mother he never had.

    My grandmother thought Allen was sweet, but disapproved of my father hanging out with him. She thought he was mentally ill, and a bad influence.

    This may have been after your Dad’s time, but the last of the Beat poets:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Last, and BEST Beat poet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AnotherDad

    That is, the law allows one spouse, usually the wife, to dissolve monogamous bonds at will, while the other spouse, usually the husband, is chained to monogamous bonds for life through alimony, “child support” (which benefits the ex-spouse not the child, so is really just dishonest alimony), confiscation and debt.
     
    Exactly.

    In the old order we had these legally imposed financial restraints on men to prevent them doing what they are naturally wont to do--chase other women. And a societal constraints--scandal, shame, the difficulty of a used (particularly divorced) woman to find a high quality husband--to prevent women form doing what they are naturally wont to do--reject their lower status male, to try and land a higher status one.

    Now, all those constraints on female misbehavior have been lifted. Dumping your husband is not just ok ... it's eat-pray-love liberating, "self-discovery". (In my neighborhood, i saw a case where one wife dumped her husband ... and within a year two of her best friends followed suit--for no particular good reason i could see.)

    The wife is entitled to repudiate all her marital duties--except child care--at will, while the husband must continue his main martial duty--provision--indefinitely. The wife keeps the house, the kids ... and a big chunk of her ex-husbands paycheck. She just doesn't have to put up with being a wife to her beta boy anymore. The husband is basically demoted to being his exes slave--who gets to see his kids a couple weekends a month.

    I'm actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I'm surprised there aren't more murders of ex-wives, of family court "judges", of lawyers. Surprised more men don't just leave the country to start again elsewhere. (The IRS which does nothing to help solve actual crimes does track down child support non-payers.) Or just chuck it all, assume new identities.

    ~~

    But when possible, i like to offer solutions, and i think there is one here: a political push toward joint custody, instead of "child support". The divorced couple split the assets and split the time they get with the kids and are responsible for their support. This sort of idea is very egalitarian and dovetails nicely with all the prog ideas about "gender neutral" blah, blah, blah. Of course, feminists hate it--because feminism has nothing to do with "equality". But exposing that feminists do not actually want equality is a nice side benefit. Push at this rift.

    What this would do is actually make women think twice. Basically women think they own their children and own their husbands paychecks. The current legal system supports them in this. But true equitable divorce where the marriage is really done, no one owes anyone anything and the kids spend half their time with each parent--not so appealing. If divorcing women actually lose something--beyond their marital responsibilities--they'll think a lot longer and harder about chucking their husband. And i'd bet wives will start behaving a lot better as wives for fear their husbands could decide they'd actually be better off chucking them. The change in incentives, would likely induce much better behavior from wives and lead to stronger and happier marriages.

    I’m actually surprised how tamely most divorced men put up with this crap. I’m surprised there aren’t more murders of ex-wives, of family court “judges”, of lawyers. Surprised more men don’t just leave the country to start again elsewhere.

    I have written the same before, somewhere under one of iSteve’s posts. I think I know the answer though. It’s not from personal experience, as I am not divorced, but I can see what’s happened to other men. (This disclaimer is in here to avoid a reply from Anon-257.)

    It’s always about the kids for the divorced Dad. If there were no kids, it’s just no problem as if a man gets saddled with undeserved alimony, there are lots of options. A man can make it on his own off the grid, if he doesn’t mind that kind of life – partly just as a way of stickin’ it to the man, if nothing else. A man doesn’t need the high-cost lifestyle that women crave. He CAN, if he is smart enough to avoid the various forms of entrapment by the STATE, plan ahead, then just high-tail it down to Costa Rica or Belize or Thailand (personally, I’d try Uruguay). Leave it all behind, AND stick it to the man – a win-win!

    Now, with the kids around, any thoughts of going postal* bring up other thoughts of what the kids will think of you (being in jail or gone for good in some way). Even with only limited access to them, and the ex-wife’s influence, a divorced Dad can still TRY to help the kids along the right track. There’s always hope, with the kids.

    I imagine that’s the only thing stopping an order of magnitude more murders of ex-wives, family-court judges, and higher-, much-higher-ups.

    .
    .

    * Excuse me, not very PC there and kind of big-gov statist of me, so let’s call it Going FedEx. We need more private-sector slurs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Lot
    And in conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

    And in conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.

    You’re just a flat-out plagiarist – straight off my 6th grade construction-paper-bound report on Ceylon. Is every damn thing on the internet now!? Criminy!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Anon
    I know you don't need this linked, but for other folks:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi2TKAGLpqA

    Thank you for the Steely Dan. Listen to their lyrics, on any of their songs. Can anyone today in music write anything 1/4 as intelligent? Steely Dan was on the Billboard Charts – just look at the crap today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Don’t black women have lots lots more testosterone than black men? And unlike men it increases rather than decreases after 40
     
    I rather doubt that. Do they have beards?

    And this is where people get things totally wrong. Black women look tough. But when pressed, they fold like a house of spades and clubs.

    Asian women look like doormats from the outside. But anyone who's gotten to know his share knows that underneath they are tough, tough, tough. They have a lot of fight in them-- they just don't take it out on their menfolk, as women in America and the "Nordic" fringe often do. (Their kids are another story.)

    Somali women seem to lean more toward the Asian model than the West African one. And why not? Mogadishu is actually closer to Djakarta and Saigon than it is to Dakar. And Senegal is closer to Iowa than to much of Somalia.

    I’ve had more trouble with black women than black men. I’m a physically large guy so other guys leave me alone, but not black women. They do that passive-aggressive thing where they smile in your face while knifing you in the back. I assume this doesn’t work on black guys because they just hit their women in these situations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Achmed E. Newman
    That is really something, that your Dad was in the midst of the Beat poets. I only know anything about it from 5 1/2 minutes or so of reading for background for 10,003 Maniacs, which is about the song Hey, Jack Kerouac off of the 10,000 Maniacs great In my Tribe album from the early '90's.

    I'll just put the vid here. I would imagine you, or even your Dad, P.L. would have heard this song, but if not, please do. Natalie Merchant is no Michael Stipe (REM), as in we don't need no steeenking lyrics. She belts out the lyrics powerfully and annunciates like, I dunno, a beat poet? So, I don't need to include them, but they cover all of your Dad's friends.

    (The line about "like Mary down in Mexico on All Saints Day" has something to do with Burrough's killing of his wife down in ole Mehico.) What a nutty crowd.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a63PArLmEHs

    My father liked the younger early Beats — Allen Ginsberg, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac.

    He thought Allen was quite mentally ill, and he thought Jack Kerouac was horribly misogynistic. One time my father saw me reading On the Road, and called it the most misogynistic book he had ever read. He also told me the Karlo Marx character was Allen Ginsberg.

    My father despised the older Beats. He called William Burroughs “pure evil”. My father was a friend of Joan Vollmer, after all. My father also despised Dave Kemmer for his pedophilic pursuit of Lucian Carr.

    I never saw the movie Kill Your Darlings, which was based on Allen’s interpretation of Lucian Carr killing Dave Kemmer. When the movie came out, my father was long gone. Lucian Carr’s son wrote a scathing rebuttal, saying the movie was complete hogwash.

    In fact, my father told me a lot about the killing. My father was out of town at the time, but he got a letter from Lucian Carr that was sent a day or two before the killing, and my father got the letter after the killing. My father’s account was pretty much identical to what Lucian Carr’s son said: Dave Kemmer was chasing Lucian Carr all over the country, to the point where Lucian Carr tried to commit suicide to get away from him. At the end, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac were going to head to France, during WW II, to get away from Dave Kemmer. In the letter, Carr says he hoped Kemmer didn’t find out about the plan, but that he expected Kemmer to be waiting for him in France surrounded by a bunch of young French boys.

    As it turned out, Kemmer did find out about the planned trip by Carr and Kerouac. That led to an argument, in which Carr killed Kemmer. Carr, who was still a juvenile at the time of the killing, was locked up for two years. The judge was convinced that Carr killed Kemmer to escape from a horrible predator, and so gave a very light sentence.

    My father had a number of conversations with Carr about Kemmer before the killing. My father’s opinion was that Carr was desperately trying to escape Kemmer.

    There is a famous incident that took place later involving my father, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, but I can’t tell the incident because it would reveal who I really am. Being a true Liberal living in Madison, Wisconsin, I can’t have people finding out I post on a right-wing site like Unz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    David Kammerer. Otherwise, thanks very much for this report from someone who knew the principals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Achmed E. Newman
    This may have been after your Dad's time, but the last of the Beat poets:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAd33J9-po

    Last, and BEST Beat poet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    "happy wives and wives who feel safe in their marriages do not leave their husbands"

    Do we have an absolute right to be happy then, and a right to create unhappiness in others if that's what it takes? A friend of my child killed herself (age 16) when her parents split up. Kids of divorce do worse (on average) than kids of intact families.

    "My husband had a girlfriend but refused to file for a divorce" - OK, I can see you have a perfectly valid complaint (he sounds a bit like my dad, actually).

    "ALL the women I know are divorced for one or more of the following reasons: alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, porn addiction, physical abuse"

    Of the (UK) couples we know who've split, in every single case it was the woman's decision (except the one who was thrown out after her husband discovered her affair). And none of these were alcoholics, abusers or gamblers, just guys who no longer generated 'good feelings' in their wives. One had been made bankrupt when his business failed - talk about 'for better, for worse'!

    I know one woman who abandoned her family because she wanted to be a writer. Another who quit because she wanted to be an artist. Both had children. Pure selfishness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Would you want to buy the works of a mother who abandoned her kids?

    I must be fair - the wife who had an affair (and got thrown out) said that hubby had bought a dog without consulting her therefore was becoming selfish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Dissident says:

    Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader.

    Isn’t it Dr. or Prof. Peterson? Was Ms. Bowles’ use of “Mr.” an intentional slight?

    Additional quotes from the article, with my comments interspersed:

    He wants to feel their imprisonment, though he lives here on a quiet residential street in Toronto and is quite free.

    For how much longer will one be able to find such a “quiet residential street” where one can be “quite free” if policies of the type favored by Nellie Bowles and her ilk continue to prevail?

    “Marxism is resurgent,” Mr. Peterson says, looking ashen and stricken.

    “Marxism”? I don’t know about that…

    I say it seems unnecessarily stressful to live like this.

    How easy for someone like Ms. Bowles to say. And how rich, when it’s people like her who are responsible for creating the very stress in-question.

    How glibly smug Ms. Bowles is.

    He has been padding around softly in socks.

    Even if Dr. Peterson’s home has immaculately clean floors and a ‘remove shoes before entering’ policy, there is always the risk of encountering a sharp object somewhere unseen on the floor. He should wear some type of slippers or sandals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. @Anonymous
    I know one woman who abandoned her family because she wanted to be a writer. Another who quit because she wanted to be an artist. Both had children. Pure selfishness.

    Would you want to buy the works of a mother who abandoned her kids?

    I must be fair – the wife who had an affair (and got thrown out) said that hubby had bought a dog without consulting her therefore was becoming selfish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @S. Anonyia
    Also the crisis in Western masculinity can be attributed to 3 things: video games, porn, and lack of sunshine.

    Fix those issues and watch how quickly young men act like normal young men, and then young women respond in kind.

    Teenagers nowadays hardly date, it's ridiculous. They don't have any interests beyond the doors of their bedrooms. They have terrible social skills. And not just the nerds, it's everyone aside from perhaps the jocks.

    Also it's important to note young women didn't really start getting fat and sloppy en masse until the 2000s, a decade later than young men were already consumed with their video games.

    So you want to go back to the good ole days of drugs sex and rock and roll and pure excess, sure go back to those days you just might get more foreign invasions , aids that are the cause of mellenials health problems

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. MBlanc46 says:

    Do feminists want polygyny? Who knows? Feminists probably don’t know. But women who are still willing to enter into sexual relationships with men? Well, they do want a high status man (say, top 25%). And the mathematics shows that they’re not all going to get one of their very own. So many of them will very likely to be willing to share. After all, sharing was the situation in our environment of evolutionary adaptation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. MBlanc46 says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    My mother was a friend of the late Carol Bly, Robert Bly's ex-wife, for about 60 years. I remember meeting her and her son not long before she died. She was rather dismissive of the Iron John men's movement thing, but had some fond memories of their time together.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Bly

    My mother told me that when Robert and Carol were engaged, my father tried to talk Carol out of marrying Robert. As in "don't marry that Harvard poet". Interesting, because at the time one of my father's best friends was a poet he knew from Columbia, Allen Ginsberg. My father was very fond of Allen, but considered Allen to be stark raving bonkers. My father thought poets and writers were interesting people to hang out with, but not someone to actually marry. Another of my father's friends, Joan Vollmer, had already been killed by her writer husband, William Burroughs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer

    I read Iron John. Interesting in a sociological sense, but not impressive writing at all. Many in my family thought Carol Bly to be a far better writer than Robert Bly, but she never got famous.

    Names to conjure with PL. I wonder whether this is first time that Joan Vollmer’s name has been mentioned on iSteve. Any other comments section and I’d say almost certainly. But here, it’s certainly pslsible that she has been, at least once. But now, not only mentioned, but mentioned by someone whose father knew her. You might have alluded to the fact that her killing was not intentional. Burroughs was trying to demonstrate that he coukd shoot the apple—or whatever it was—off of her head without shooting her. If only the gun’s sights weren’t faulty. Or if only Burroughs hadn’t been completely wacko on drugs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. MBlanc46 says:
    @Roderick Spode
    At the riskey of sounding like Whiskey, young white women making whores of themselves are doing more damage to the fabric of our civilisation than they are probably capable of understanding.

    Spode recommends Extension du domaine de la lutte by M. Houellebecq, particularly part 2, chapter 10, which is set in a provincial French nightclub on New Year's Eve.

    Well said, sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. MBlanc46 says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    My father liked the younger early Beats -- Allen Ginsberg, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac.

    He thought Allen was quite mentally ill, and he thought Jack Kerouac was horribly misogynistic. One time my father saw me reading On the Road, and called it the most misogynistic book he had ever read. He also told me the Karlo Marx character was Allen Ginsberg.

    My father despised the older Beats. He called William Burroughs "pure evil". My father was a friend of Joan Vollmer, after all. My father also despised Dave Kemmer for his pedophilic pursuit of Lucian Carr.

    I never saw the movie Kill Your Darlings, which was based on Allen's interpretation of Lucian Carr killing Dave Kemmer. When the movie came out, my father was long gone. Lucian Carr's son wrote a scathing rebuttal, saying the movie was complete hogwash.

    In fact, my father told me a lot about the killing. My father was out of town at the time, but he got a letter from Lucian Carr that was sent a day or two before the killing, and my father got the letter after the killing. My father's account was pretty much identical to what Lucian Carr's son said: Dave Kemmer was chasing Lucian Carr all over the country, to the point where Lucian Carr tried to commit suicide to get away from him. At the end, Lucian Carr and Jack Kerouac were going to head to France, during WW II, to get away from Dave Kemmer. In the letter, Carr says he hoped Kemmer didn't find out about the plan, but that he expected Kemmer to be waiting for him in France surrounded by a bunch of young French boys.

    As it turned out, Kemmer did find out about the planned trip by Carr and Kerouac. That led to an argument, in which Carr killed Kemmer. Carr, who was still a juvenile at the time of the killing, was locked up for two years. The judge was convinced that Carr killed Kemmer to escape from a horrible predator, and so gave a very light sentence.

    My father had a number of conversations with Carr about Kemmer before the killing. My father's opinion was that Carr was desperately trying to escape Kemmer.


    There is a famous incident that took place later involving my father, Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, but I can't tell the incident because it would reveal who I really am. Being a true Liberal living in Madison, Wisconsin, I can't have people finding out I post on a right-wing site like Unz.

    David Kammerer. Otherwise, thanks very much for this report from someone who knew the principals.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. MBlanc46 says:
    @TheodoreKaczynskiFan
    Yes, the "eternal enemy" bit is wrong and hyperbole.
    But there really is something "polygamous" (there's probably a better term) to the current cultural milieu of the last 20 years. And while it is worthwhile to look at what women say, we need really only look at what they do.

    When life circumstances permit, i.e. when a woman is sufficiently attractive, has free time, some disposable income, family and/or religious pressure is not constraining her, many women will spend their entire 20s (possibly longer) at a relationship buffet - continually searching for better partners.
    For all the stupidity of the various Red Pill forums, they are on to something real with the concept of the "cock carousel". I've seen this behaviour in literally all of the age appropriate women in my extended family as well as many of the women I socialized with in college. A decade ago I just thought my family was dysfunctional (my mother's side is Appalachian) but I now realize there are much larger cultural forces at work on young Western women.

    It is foolish to ignore this, even if the people complaining about it are losers.

    Brother Whiskey is indeed prone to hyperbole. Nuance and qualification are not in his rhetorical arsenal. But he’s mostly correct about women’s behavior. Women have evolved to reject low-status males. That has no doubt benefited the species as a whole. It probably also limited the species to a hunter-gatherer existence (too much male-male violence to allow larger economic projects). At some point (probably early in the neolithic), men imposed permanent monogamy on women (aka the Patriarchy). The top men got fewer women, but most men got a woman. The big cost was that most women were bound to a low-status man. To borrow one of Whiskey’s favorite phrases, women hate, hate, hated it. The upside of it was that women (and men) got civilization. But with modernity (a Western invention) women saw an opportunity to break free from the Patriarchy (aka permanent monogamy). And Western men, in thrall to modernity themselves, and worn down by women’s nagging and badgering, gave in. Apparently, women, and many men, believe that civilization and permanent monogamy are independent of one another. We shall see whether or not that is the case.

    I part company with Whiskey when he claims that it is only Western women who are susceptible to rebelling against their men. As Asian women enter more deeply into modernity, look for them to begin to behave just as Western women have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.