05 June 2007
I’ve linked to this superb four-part article before but I’ll put it up here again anyway just in case anyone hasn’t read it yet.
Where, asked these Baby Boom women, were all the men? I could have told them, of course, where the men were and are, but being already in possession of all correct wisdom — not to mention Incarnated Goddesses — no female ever bothered to ask me. To date, not one has. What could I know? I am, after all, only a male.
The men – what’s left of them — are in hiding, of course. That’s what any refugee population does when war is made on it, and its homeland is laid to Waste. Sister, understand: only the weakest of males serve the totalitarianism of gynocracy. No real man, confronting his betrayal by American culture and femininity, will teach in your schools, for the lessons are false, and he knows he is conditioning more kids – especially more boys – into further betrayals. No real man will drone in your corporations, corrupt collectivities hiding behind the stained skirts of “market forces.” Go to any indigenous town on the planet. The market is the locus of women, their interests and their power. As for the coercive “forces” of the market — well, modern American men know all about social coercion.
Man shortage? Fuckin’ A there’s a man shortage.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:39 PM
At 8:57 PM, Anonymous said…
If you think it through in detail, it becomes obvious that the traditional male did get it fine. He understood that one cannot be nice to women; that one cannot negotiate with women; that one cannot expect women to be rational. So WTF bother?
Anonymous age 65
At 10:17 PM, tba said…
I absolutely LOVE IT when people talk as if we are much more advanced now than our predecessors. More technology doesn’t necessarily equate to higher intelligence, else schools schools would not suck so bad nor would we be importing Indians for the technology sector.
but the BEST proof that we aren’t as smart as we think we are is the fact that we think women can actually be as rational as women. Or that we think we can convert women with logical arguments (I fall for this one often- but usually because I love having debates). I remember one female who couldn’t even entertain the fact that men are stronger physically than women. WHY BOTHER INDEED!!!
At 11:00 PM, Anonymous said…
This reminds me of something ever heard of Julia Suzanne Bohl? In 2002 I think it was, she was caught with a little over 600 grams of cannabis in Singapore. 500 grams garners a mandatory death sentence. I can’t help but link the vagina monologs to this and what her vagina wouldn’t have been able to do, namingly act as a parachute and save her neck had her lawyer not demanded the drugs be tested for purity (ended up she had a little under 300g of the drug). Anyhow if you search around you could find a laugh at this unfortunately the little bitch didn’t get hung for the hell of it.
At 12:36 AM, Alien Anthropologist said…
That’s a great article: I think it sums things up pretty well.
At 1:57 AM, ntm72 said…
At age 35, I am one of the Escapees, fortunate enough to have never entered into a long-term relationship with a woman — and I never will. I’ve seen what it does to the men around me, and I want none of it.
I identify fully with the derogatory comments directed at academia. After teaching math for over a decade, I became entirely fed up with the system, its attempts to destroy creativity and instead produce robots who are attuned only to matriarchal propaganda, and so I have recently quit, and intend to move west (I live in the central US) to forge a new identity, to pursue my creative passions unhindered by the dictates of women and their capricious urges.
You can’t bring together a group of men to forge a revolution, for it will end in failure; Exhibit A, as the author notes, is Promise Keepers, which was doomed from the beginning as its foundation was flawed, based on the assumption that women are inherently good. Even if your undergirding is solid, it only takes a few bad apples to ruin a movement. No, this revolution can only be waged, as so many have observed, if each man becomes, to borrow the US Army’s slogan, ‘an army of one’.
At 5:39 AM, Anonymous said…
In the corporate world, management ‘slots’ that are handed to women or immigrants don’t go to native men. Let’s say that 1/3 of the available slots now go to women and another 1/3 go to immigrants. The number of ‘marriageable’ (high earning) men is much smaller. Furthermore, women like to ‘marry up’. The high-earning women will marry the higher-earning men, creating ‘power’ couples of two high-earners. This greatly increases the income inequality in a society. The women that are left out become single moms. The power couples move into guard-gated neighborhoods. The society fragments. All because of feminism and those who promote it. Every country that adopts feminism is dying.
At 10:31 AM, Anonymous said…
I’m 40 never married and never will, will retire with millions in the bank and thank god I never slipped, tripped and put that ring on some female. Long live being single and treating women like the disrespectful, fat ass, ugly absolute pieces of shit for human beings ever designed by feminism. Oddly this attitude draws them to me like a magnet. Have to beat them away. Reverse psychology works I guess.
At 12:57 PM, Jerkmenistan said…
The 4-part article was somewhat disjointed and repetitive, but the premise is acceptable if the assumptions are correct. Specifically, if we assume that the vast majority of women want to “marry up”, then the pool of eligible men has indeed reduced by virtue of the fact that women are occupying higher positions of authority and earning power. That said, it would be a fallacy to assume that a large percentage of men are “dropping out” because there is increased competition for such positions. Competition has a tendency to shake out the weak hands. Additionally, high-status and high-earning positions is not a zero-sum game.
Likewise, women who occupy higher positions of authority and earning power are usually past their prime marrying age (i.e. they are in their mid-30s). This, of course, does not mean that they cannot marry, or that they do not want to marry. Indeed, many still do primarily because they put their careers first in their lives. There are less men available to them not because men have dropped out of the workforce, but because most acceptable men are already married or do not want to get married (to them or anyone else). By “acceptable” I do not mean that they are of equal or higher status in terms of prestige or earning power (although these are factors for some women), but rather that such men offer traits that successful women want in a husband (e.g., handsome, well-mannered, highly-intelligent, comes from a good family, etc…) Just like beautiful women, highly-eligible men are often snapped up by women.
In the end, delaying one’s search for an eligible mate can affect both genders, although it often affects women to a more significant degree due to the emphasis men place on physical attractiveness and remaining child-bearing years.
At 3:24 PM, darkbhudda said…
Of course there’s a man shortage, there’s only so many Brad Pitt look-alike billionaires to go around.
At 5:41 PM, Alien Anthropologist said…
“The high-earning women will marry the higher-earning men, creating ‘power’ couples of two high-earners.”
I disagree. Only fully feminised higher-earning men are likely to marry a bitchy thirty-something career woman when they can pretty much have their choice of younger models with better temperaments.
But that’s because most men don’t much care how ‘successful’ their wife is, whereas most women care about little beyond how ‘successful’ their husband is. After all, you don’t get rich by divorcing a man with no money.
Note the use of ‘successful’ in quotes, because I have a hard time seeing most higher-earning jobs as success today. Corporate life is mostly bullshit work selling bullshit products to people who’ve been taken in by bullshit advertising; that may be an ideal job for women, but for a man, where’s the success in that? I’d rather be poor and happy doing what I want to do, thanks.
At 7:42 PM, ChicagoMan said…
Yes it is true, every society that adopts feminism is dying.
On the flip side, societies that adopt feminism also lose the will to fight for their freedoms. Just look at Rome and Greece, they had to hire people to fight for them. After bad treatment by Rome the Visigoths sieged Rome and the limp wristed Romans let the Visigoths conquer Rome without a fight.
So the choice is ours, fight feminism and get our country back, or let feminism and ultimately our societies crumble and be taken over by muslims.
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous said…
The best policy is not to fight. Let the West fall. Government and religion are now solidly controlled by women and serve women.
It is interesting to watch Islam grow quickly in the UK. The masculine culture always snuffs out the feminine culture.
It is odd to see how destructive women are – even of their own culture. When “asian” Muslims are raping English girls, one cannot criticise the Muslims or be branded a racist. When Muslims are trying to force sharia, Englishmen cannot resist or be branded intolerant.
Feminism is cultural suicide; an act of self-destruction women seem to relish.
At 11:21 PM, phoenix said…
The muslims are doomed too. I’ve read enough articles about Iraq and other countries to know this. I wouldn’t worry about being conquered by our Muslim brothers, they are firmly under their burkha’d sisters sandals. That’s probably why they keep killing themselves actually.
There is no such thing as a fun job. It was probably more mentally bearable in the past, but it was also more physically taxing.
I need to go look for it again, but in the US, our special agents (M16 equivalents I guess) now have female career paths. They offer flexi-time and lower physical standards, but no doubt, I’m sure, they’re allowed to boss men around. I love how women are considered more intelligent than men and a necessary part of the intelligence and law enforcement sectors now, when we got along a lot better without them. It’s an absolute joke, if anyone is interested just check under fbi.gov and I think under careers or something, I had a good laugh. I think the CIA has the same deal.
At 12:47 AM, Alien Anthropologist said…
One of the reasons why the barbarians took Rome was that many Romans realised they’d be better off if the Empire collapsed; it was sucking them dry with high taxes to pay for ‘bread and circuses’ for the underclass, and had, I believe, imposed the death penalty for farmers who abandoned their land rather than continue to slave away to hand over most of their income to the government in taxes. Why fight to protect a government that’s destroying your lives?
Oddly, that situation sounds a little familiar.
At 3:59 AM, C said…
Almost got married, decided to wait one extra year to save up money after college. Thats when things changed. It became all about her. We are still together, but I don’t think I could have taken the stress knowing she had a $5k ring and the ability to ruin me at her whim.
Marriage, with current laws, basically gives the women absolute control. Keep your money and leverage.
At 6:37 AM, Hmh said…
Downtown it’s not a man drought: try Man Desert. Complete with legions of puzzled 30-year old females wandering about and wondering just how much it will take to get the boys to ask them out. Eejits. I really wonder sometimes how obvious it’s going to have to get before they understand that fat, strident, stupid, domineering, selfish harpies have little to no chance of getting and keeping a man.