In response to words printed in a scary thing called a newspaper, available in both paper and electronic format, some wingnut feminists are calling for a man to be fired from his position and some other men to be forced to change their words to reflect what the feminists feel is a better choice of words. The “better choice” is of course the choice that best obscures some icky facts feminists don’t wike!
The opinion that rape confers special victimhood status on the “survivor” is apparently outrageous because, according to the UltraViolet petition, no person is allowed to question the veracity of rape claims. From female victims. The jury is still out when it comes to male victims. The reality that lowering the bar on what constitutes rape to ground level will inevitably lead to a whole lot of women being held accountable for rape will no doubt take a while for the feminist mind to process. And the growing list of men falsely accused of sexual misconduct and punished by kangaroo courts on college campuses, is met with utter indifference from the rape culture crowd. Meh. Who cares, right?
The whole rape culture argument has devolved into pure hysteria – totally irrational and devoid of any evidence, facts or truths – this video from Christina Hoff Summers aka The Factual Feminist lays out the case brilliantly.
But what really, really irritates me is the second part of the Huffington Post story: the Washington Post changed a headline in response to outrage from fascists who refuse to allow any truth that doesn’t meet their ideological framework to be proclaimed. Here is the truth that is pissing them off so badly:
Married women are notably safer than their unmarried peers, and girls raised in a home with their married father are markedly less likely to be abused or assaulted than children living without their own father.
Start with the threat that girls face from men. One of the most comprehensive portraits of sexual and physical abuse of girls (and boys) comes from the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. As the figure above indicates, children are more likely to be abused when they do not live in a home with their married father. What’s more: girls and boys are significantly more likely to be abused when they are living in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult—usually their mother’s boyfriend. Indeed, the report notes that “only 0.7 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents were sexually abused, compared to 12.1 per 1,000 children living with a single parent who had an unmarried partner.” The results from this federal study are consistent with academic research that indicates that “girls who are victimized are … more likely to have lived without their natural fathers,” and that the risk is especially high when a boyfriend or stepfather is in the picture.
The risk of physical abuse also increases when a child lives without her father, once again, particularly when an unrelated boyfriend is in the home. A 2005 study published in Pediatrics found that “[c]hildren residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with 2 biological parents.”
Women are also safer in married homes. As the figure above (derived from a recent Department of Justice study) indicates, married women are the least likely to be victimized by an intimate partner. They are also less likely to be the victims of violent crime in general.
Overall, another U.S. Department of Justice study found that never-married women are nearly four times more likely to be victims of violent crime, compared to married women. The bottom line is that married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.
What’s going on here? Why are women safer when married and children safer when living with their married biological parents? For girls, the research tells us that marriage provides a measure of stability and commitment to the adults’ relationship, that married biological fathers are more likely to be attentive and engaged with their children because they expect the relationship to be enduring. As a consequence, unrelated males are less likely to have sustained interaction with children of the family when dad has a day-in-day-out presence in the home. More generally, the “emotional support and the supervision” that engaged fathers provide to their children can limit their vulnerability to potential predators, as David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center, has observed.
In other news, water is wet and fire has a 100% probability of being hot.
Chief Royal Shrieky Witch herself, the lovely Amanda Marcotte, immediately jumps on the backpedal express, claiming the article is really just a threat to women: Get married or you face the violent consequences, ladies. Because clearly there is no distinction to be made between an observation of fact and a threat.
Bananas are yellow.
Did you just threaten me?
Then Amanda goes on to explain that married people tend to be wealthier which allows them to live in nice neighborhoods and they kind of like that and tend not to fuck up their lives with violence. While it is true that wealthy people are the ones who seem to grasp that marriage is an important facet of happiness for most people, marriage is also one of the best ways to accumulate wealth with one important caveat: it has to be a lasting marriage. Get married and stay married and, according to the Census Bureau (2010) your median net worth when you are between 55 and 64 will be $261,405. Compare that to $71,428 for a man heading a household, and $39,043 for a woman heading a household.
Is marriage automatically going to make a couple wealthy? Of course not, but it hardly takes a mathematical genius to know that two people earning minimum wage are going to be able to afford a much nicer lifestyle than one person earning minimum wage. Toss a kid in the mix when you only have one income and you are fucked. And not only are you and the kid personally fucked, you create a society in which kids living near you are less likely to be successful, too. Being surrounded by women who make stupid, financially disastrous choices seems to teach children that stupid, financially disastrous choices are the way to go.
What is behind this feminist hatred of simple facts? Why are feminists so opposed to long-term married couples with children accumulating wealth and living in safe communities? Why are they opposed to children growing up in homes with their biological parents, protected from violence, abuse and assault?
Well, which way do those couples tend to vote?
How does rape culture fit in here? It’s the principle means by which the feminist media convinces women, especially young college aged women, that men are dangerous predators who will harm them and their children and being a single mother is so much more fun! Whee!
Get married and stay married, ladies and your odds of living in poverty just dropped dramatically! $260K net worth vs $40K! You’re less likely to be the victim of violent assault, more likely to be happy (if you are committed to the marriage and not to yourself, that is) and your children are less likely to be abused.
How threatening!
But think of all those welfare and social safety net programs that aren’t gonna be needed anymore! And that is the real threat, isn’t it? Who works in these programs? Who earns a nice state or federal salary for doing what amounts to bullshit work? Who counts on an endless supply of single women dragging their children through poverty to earn their own comfortable living?
Women depend heavily for jobs on some sectors that aren’t doing well in the recovery, particularly government.
Well, isn’t that curious? Must be a coincidence, right? Lots of liberal arts educated white ladies working in government – the demographic most likely to identify as feminist – and they don’t like the facts about lasting marriages broadcast too loudly. But they do like the rape culture narrative out there front and center to plant the fear of men deep in women’s souls.
Follow the money. It always comes down to that, doesn’t it, with ideologues? The money leads to one place: single women, terrified of rape and men and marriage, create jobs for rich white women. Feminism promotes the well-being of women and girls?
About as much as Hitler promoted the well-being of homosexuals, the disabled and Jews, if you ask me.
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
To be fair, the dissent is coming from Amanda Marcotte. When she is on the opposite side of an argument, I know I am doing well — it is like God Himself is with me 🙂
Seriously, there is no reasoning with these people. We are speaking two entirely different languages. So-called Feminists FEEL things, and react accordingly. Facts carry no weight with them, so pointing them out means nothing.
The Narrative is all that matters. George Will didn’t even say what his detractors claim he did, because it is not and was never about facts to them. It challenges the all-important Narrative, so any disagreement must be crushed.
In essence, Feminists are dragging sexism and rape down the same road as the Left has with racism, making them not just incredibly nebulous and all-encompassing, but also as the bludgeon to use on all their enemies. It will have the same result, making the claim laughable, and making REAL sexism and rape less believed.
Human nature is what it is. Some people will always be bad. Deciding an entire gender needs to be proactively punished and lectured for the crimes of a few will only breed resentment and make enemies of those who would normally be allies – and will have no effect on those who were already predisposed to act badly. It’s almost like the so-called Feminists WANT men to be the monsters they claim they already are.
Another great post. I just wish I had an answer as to what to really do about it. It might be moot. Our civilization is already in a bad way, and I don’t see it getting better anytime soon.
LikeLike
I read Mona Chilabi’s response to this incident over at data journalism site fivethirtyeight.com before I saw this, and I had a few problems with what she left out of her analysis, which I kept to myself. The upshot of her criticism of the original article authors is however, I believe essentially right, that there is an issue of confusing correlation with causation. The factors that lead to people getting and staying married are what reduce the probability of privation and abuse. Two low income workers marrying are more likely to divorce because even together their income is hard to survive on and it can create resentment and hostility between them (“I am better off with a roommate” sort of phenomenon, although they aren’t actually better off with a roommate).
A detail I think both articles I read failed to address is sample size versus population size. An abuse rate for children seventy per hundred-thousand (the proper statistical measure for the data presented) in homes with two married biological parents, doesn’t account for the fact that married biological parents aren’t the norm and in fact make up only about 35-40% of households; while the twelve-hundred-fifty per hundred-thousand rate for children of single or remarried mothers is going to be slightly smaller than it appears because that cohort represents a majority of children. It is important to recognize that neither rate is terribly high, this is not a very common thing happening, which means the headline of “get married and avoid abuse or other privation” isn’t a good one, it just means that if people took the advice, some of the excess abuse rate for single and remarried mothers would transfer back to married two parent households. After all some of that abuse is being carried out by mothers. Ultimately this abuse of statistical analysis by everyone is part of the reason I am skeptical of any ideology any more. Everyone seems intent on misusing data to promote their positions.
LikeLike
And the growing list of men falsely accused of sexual misconduct and punished by kangaroo courts on college campuses, is met with utter indifference from the rape culture crowd. Meh. Who cares, right?
They’re not indifferent. It’s part of the plan. The goal is to make the expulsion of men from colleges and universities based on allegations alone the new normal. Once that’s accepted, the goal is to translate that standard of “justice” to the courts. Thankfully, it won’t succeed, but I’m actually a little happy that this is the feminist plan as it contains the seeds of the destruction of third wave feminism. I’m not happy about the men who will be hurt in the process, but war is war.
Chief Royal Shrieky Witch herself, the lovely Amanda Marcotte, immediately jumps on the backpedal express, claiming the article is really just a threat to women: Get married or you face the violent consequences, ladies.
This, too, is part and parcel of the plan. Feminists are against heterosexual marriage. Whenever an article or study comes out about the benefits of marriage and the perils of single motherhood, the response is always the same: marriage isn’t the answer to help single moms because they’re usually poor and the men they can attract are beasts who beat them. (Well, the last may have some truth.) The feminist answer is always the same: single moms need “support” which is generally expressed as three things: paid maternity leave, generous paid sick days, and “income support.” Notice what all three have in common? Someone else is footing the bill. Single moms don’t need husbands, they just need to be given money for nothing either by an employer or the government.
I, too, noted that Manjaw Mandy noted that married people tend to be wealthier. But she has a congenital defect that will not allow her to see that perhaps young women might want to emulate the behavior of those wealthy people, wait to have kids, and perhaps be wealthier themselves. That just won’t do. Because it would mean being sane and self-reliant and if that happens, they won’t have to rely on government
handouts“income support.”Feminists need more dependent single moms, just like the need more rape. It’s their main marketing campaign…
LikeLike
It seems we had many of the same thoughts as we read this article. I am not ashamed of being a long time liberal born and bred, but I am furious reading “liberal” media especially that directed at minority and victim groups, of late, because of how much they push the notion that every tiny grievance is a massive attack of oppression.
LikeLike
“The largest percentage of perpetrators (83.9 percent) was parents, including birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents. How do fathers compare to mothers in the perpetration of child maltreatment? As discussed earlier, Federal data derived from CPS reports in 2003 indicate that in 18.8 percent of the substantiated cases, fathers were the sole perpetrators of maltreatment; in 16.9 percent of the cases, the fathers and the mothers were perpetrators; and in 1.1 percent of the cases, the father acted with someone else to abuse or neglect his child. Mothers were the sole perpetrators in 40.8 percent of the cases and acted with someone besides the father in 6.3 percent of the cases. This means that fathers were involved in 36.8 percent of child maltreatment cases and that mothers were involved in 64 percent of child maltreatment cases.”
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chapterthree.cfm
LikeLike
It’d be fascinating to see what the breakdown was for married households v nonmarried. My gut instinct tells me that child abuse is far higher in households of single or remarried moms than in married households or those headed by a single father.
If I’m correct, that the obvious conclusions are that A) divorce should be far harder to obtain and B) custody should favor the natural fathers.
Strictly for child safety reasons of course…. 🙂
LikeLike
That is exactly correct. If you look at the first graph, children are far more likely to be abused when they do not live with their biological father
LikeLike
I like your energy… I wish to read all your insightful essays… Yes that is what I consider them….
Well researched essays… Passionate debates… Yes that is what I consider them to be…
Thought of writing this Appreciation as that is what we miss doing in our busy or made busy, strife stricken lives….
Keep going on… God bless you…
Thanks/Akhilesh
**** haven’t addressed you by name b’coz I do not know…
LikeLike
And this was coincidence…
Today one of my Facebook update was:
“There was an Advertisement for 10,000 Jobs for building Dubai… Some 1,00,000 Applications were received? Dare to Guess and Post the % of Male Applicants?”
Enjoy Shopping in Dubai…
LikeLike
I found the last sentence of the paragraph after this one, which you didn’t quote to be the most chilling statement in the “chapter”, namely “Mothers are not more likely to be the perpetrator when it comes to sexual abuse; fathers are more likely to be reported for this crime.” I find this problematic because of the “…to be reported for this crime” part. I wonder how many children are being sexually abused by their mothers and it isn’t being reported because there is no one who would question if it’s happening. Given how mothers are responsible for the majority of child abuse and maltreatment, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that they do engage in sexual abuse more often then it’s reported. And yes this is merely speculation on my part.
LikeLike
C.H.Sommers is the only factual feminist I know of-the rest of them don’t like facts to much.
I really get tired of bringing up facts to feminists; like woman and girls are safer in intact families with father and husband only to have them say “oh,but I know this one father who…
LikeLike
I would be shocked if at least one woman didn’t apply… so I will guess 99.995% of applicants were men.
LikeLike
NAWALT! The knee jerk response they have for seemingly everything
LikeLike
JB,
You likely already know about this site, but just in case you don’t, its focus is on false rape accusations and systemic abuse on the issue: http://www.cotwa.info/
LikeLike
It’s not wealth that makes being married the preferable status, though it doesn’t hurt. Here’s a list of citations with brief blurbs on just how badly single-parent (virtually always women) families perform. Many of these examples (and there are many, many, many more beyond these) have been (when appropriate) adjusted for economic and racial conditions.
With no more ado:::
Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes. Source: “One-Parent Families and Their Children;” Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).
After taking into account race, socio-economic status, sex, age and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents. Source: Ralph McNeal, Sociology of Education 88. 1995
The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother. Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.
Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America’s rapists grew up the same way. Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.
The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.
Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations. Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.
The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families. Source: A. Anne Hill, June O’Neill, “Underclass Behaviors in the United States,” CUNY, Baruch College. 1993
LikeLike
“It will have the same result, making the claim laughable, and making REAL sexism and rape less believed.”
It’s not laughable when the claim – no matter how obviously false and unreasonable on its face – is enforced by public and private authorities.
As far “real sexism and rape”, definition expansion makes it real, so that the same penalty covers a broadened range of behavior. It’s not that they’re prevaricating. It’s that your view of what is or isn’t real has been made obsolete.
LikeLike
So it seems I am going to play the role of data snob with regards to this article (sorry JB). I would be skeptical of every study you cited, because all of them are or nearly are 20 years old and a few are 25 years old. One of the most important lessons of research is to use the most recent available data. I have no doubt that there is validity to the studies you cite, but I would encourage you to find newer data.
LikeLike
I stole those refs directly from the original WP piece. Wilcox did the research.
LikeLike
An incredibly groundbreaking and insightful piece from the most brilliant honey badger in the blogosphere. I’m going to have to reread it again and again. I say this even though I am one of those statistical outliers to have been abused (by three actors) within an intact family. This article however will assist me in answering the perpetual question from my now elderly feminist mother: “would you have been better off if I had divorced your father?” Now I can answer her ‘No’ more convincingly in that I wouldn’t expect a woman with poor judgment to suddenly acquire a judgment upgrade while continuing to ascribe to two faulty ideologies: progressivism and feminism.
Why are women who make poor choices in romantic or marital partners so ready to pass blame outside of themselves? I believe it is because they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions while meanwhile Mommy and Daddy State keep telling them how “special” and “intelligent” they are for remaining children forever.
I feel as if I have come full circle, now completely agreeing with George Will when I was raised to believe that he was “the enemy”. Next thing you know, I’ll be registering Republican (fat chance but never say never).
LikeLike
Shame on me for not writing more clearly… I meant to apologize to you for being a data snob all around, but I was questioning the data that moseszd presented because of it’s age. The data you re-posted from the original article is more recent.
LikeLike
Indeed – never say never. You’ll find the GOP a surprisingly big tent and that there are many brands of conservatism – for example, I’m a fiscon – very tight w/ money, but socially quite liberal. Some of my friends are social cons – big on Morals and the like.
There’s plenty of stupid in the GOP for sure – however, the underlying theme of personal responsibility is there.
Now if we can just get ride of the cronyists and statists…
LikeLike
We have quite a few guys in the manosphere who grew up with toxic single mothers and are having difficulties connecting with the opposite sex. They basically need some kind of therapy before even learning Game, but at least there are already some professional PUAs who specialize in that kind of long-term-self-improvement strategy. Apart from that the community offers to meet them up in their cities. At least they turn to guys who can actually help them via wisdom a la Rollo Tomassi, because going to a feminized therapist or the general media or getting useless girl-advice in the form of “Just be yourself” creates even worse mental states.
The girls from those households however are ultimately worse off. Establishing sexual contact with a man is no problem, because for a woman only being slim and not terribly ugly is enough to be attractive, but most are just making so many bad decisions, that they are total emotional wrecks. Since feminism only “empowers” them and portrays them as well as their mothers as complete innocents they have zero interest in real therapy and self-improvement. I personally have met those girls – sleeping with countless guys, emotional trainwrecks, constantly lying and manipulating people in their environment and never taking responsibility for their actions. There will many more of these in the next years to come.
But since Brave New World is the goal the only thing that is missing is more Soma (maybe some GMO-pot will help) for everyone and artificial births which are already being field-tested on animals.
LikeLike
And old means ‘no good?. That’s just stupid.
The reason that my studies are ‘old’ is because I stopped messing around with this issue over a decade ago. It became clear that facts and reason didn’t matter to feminists or to the general public which prefers to be ignorant and pretend Women are Wonderful even though women are, in being mendacious little twerps, the equal of men.
And, for the record, the studies KEEP CONFIRMING THOSE OLD STUDIES. Mitt Romney got RIPPED APART for pointing out that the biggest predictor of crime and failure were single mother households.
Like it, or not, what was true then (about single mother households) is still true now. And no amount of ‘being a data snob’ will change that.
LikeLike
As a general rule academics tend to view “old sources” in the absence of counterbalancing new data to form a series, as less trust worthy. I am aware that there are still studies which are finding these same results, the reason why old studies are frowned upon is either no one is asking that particular question anymore which suggests the question is problematic; or people using the old data are trying to obfuscate that newer research has reached a different conclusion. I know I am not the teacher here but if any of my students ever handed me a bibliography of only twenty plus year-old sources, it’s almost certain I would fail the paper on that alone. In part I responded because it’s a pet peeve of mine, and also because there are some “educated” people who don’t share the view and would than scoff at the research being dated and cite more recent studies which support their views as being more valid.
LikeLike
Fantastic article, JB! Unfortunately, here’s a rebuttal: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-washington-post-misused-the-data-on-violence-against-women/
I’m sure it’s full of crap, yet just figured it could be used as fodder for a possible future article
LikeLike
We can’t have women looking towards the men they love like their Fathers, Husbands, and Brothers for protection and support, that would be sexist!
LikeLike
The more women that get raped, the greater the number of victims, the larger the membership of feminism. So that they would be fighting against marriage makes perfect sense.
It wouldn’t surprise me if campus feminists started paying men to rape students to prove their threat narrative. tail wagging the dog sort of thing.
Feminists: the best friend rape culture ever had.
LikeLike
“So-called Feminists FEEL things, and react accordingly. Facts carry no weight with them, so pointing them out means nothing.”
This is it really. They feel afraid of violence, more afraid than your average man, therefore they must be in more danger from violence than your average man. The facts, however, paint a very different picture.
LikeLike
The Bush voters vs. Kerry voters illustrates once again why unmarried women should not have the vote (and married women, it doesn’t much matter if they do or don’t).
LikeLike
At least they turn to guys who can actually help them via wisdom a la Rollo Tomassi…
Rollo Tomassi: The man who wrote a self-help book, who is also anti-self help books. Except he’s own, because he’s Rollo and thus always right, unlike those other self-help books.
Do you realize how laughable it is that in an article about how much good lasting marriages do for society you’re recommending advice from pick-up artists?
LikeLike
but god forbid they learn to protect themselves…….
LikeLike
I just popped in to defend Rollo Tomassi–I’m a fan even if I don’t agree with him 100%. He extends “game” to marriage and relationships as a means of curbing hypergamy (and divorce!). I’ve probably characterized that too glibly and now he’ll probably come and chew me out for that. Poor me. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree that the great “right” to vote is a dubious bone thrown to women by aristocracy particularly when it seems to cut down on genuinely (as opposed to “seemingly”) grassroots activism. I also understand that this is a minority view in a movement looking for more “mainstream” acceptance. It seems to me that both Men and Women GTOWs might think about GTOW with regard to the corrupt political process. That’s not a battle cry but rather what I see as inevitable should business-as-usual continue to prevail regardless of which party is in power.
LikeLike
Of course he extends “game” to marriage. Game means whatever the pick-up artists want to to mean, at any time. It’s a mysterious, amorphous concept. All we can agree upon is that every guy needs to get it.
And, of course, that the all-knowing Rollo has the answers.
LikeLike
Rollo did not come up with it by himself, he is just someone who compiles it well. There are plenty of other sources, but I consider him the best and most concise compiler of the manosphere.
Actually the PUAs did most of it. Since statistics are a major part in science – especially in behavioral psychology – then who among the men has experience with hundreds of women and dozens of relationships? Well – since that part of psychology is deliberately ignored by modern psychology for various reasons men put their combined knowledge and experiences together and manifested Game themselves. And yes – Christian men who wanted to save their marriage used wisdom by the PUAs. It is ironic, but would not be necessary if the universities wanted to look into the feminine imperative and real female behavior. (Instead they still pump hundreds of millions around the world into eye-gaze studies to find out that men look at butts and boobs and women look at eyes and lips and butts – still leaving aside the more complex female arousal scale which reacts to a multitude of factors.)
The problem is of course that it would unmask that whole gender crap & the feminine mystique (showing very ugly evolutionary characteristics of women) and ultimately it would encourage more masculine and independent behavior among men. And we certainly don’t want that among the upper circles.
Rollo’s take on Game: “A set of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological & sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations.” & “One reason Game is hated by the Feminine Imperative is because it effectively returns a degree of women’s hypergamous control back to men.”
Plenty of married men and also young men looking for women have found it works. By now you can get Game wisdom also through a multitude of other sites. Denying it is about as useful as denying gravity. It is simple law in male-female behavior patterns.
LikeLike
Rollo did not come up with it by himself
Indeed not. Rollo uses game like everyone else does: To peddle his pseudo-sexual politics as fact.
Since statistics are a major part in science – especially in behavioral psychology – then who among the men has experience with hundreds of women and dozens of relationships?
Pure garbage. These men are perverts, the male form of the slut. That’s like saying we should go to the slut for relationship advice.
And yes – Christian men who wanted to save their marriage used wisdom by the PUAs.
Throughout history people have always rationalized looking to the decadent in order to get what they want.
Rollo’s take on Game: “A set of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological & sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations.
This is almost literally “Whatever Rollo wants it to mean”.
It is simple law in male-female behavior patterns.
And there is part of the problem: Inter-sex relationships are not “simple”.
Has it ever occurred to you that it’s a problem that all of the major teachers of game are cads and perverts?
I invite you to read this post by Zippy. Please look at the comments if you do, a lot of the objections many people raise are addressed there as well.
And this. Look, more definitions of game. Apparently game is the wonder drug.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m copping out giving you links. Here’s the real problem:
1) All of the pick-up artists have different definitions of “game”. Roissy’s “16 commandments” are not compatible with a marriage in any meaningful sense of the word. They are designed to have sex with sluts. They thrive in a feminist world, in fact.
2) We are also supposed to expect to learn things about love (Rollo has a series of posts on it) from somebody who used women for years as a sexual toilet. This apparently makes him some form of expert.
2) Rollo defines “game” to mean “Things that I, Rollo, think are true”. Thus, he can claim that his game is the same as Roissy’s in one breath and then claim in another that married people can totally have game.
3) So, to define game we need to look at what all of the pick-up artists and game blogs have in common. We also need to look at what information can’t be gotten anywhere else. We actually CAN get it from the Churches, if we look. No, really. We have the INTERNET now.
What’s that? You’ll need to look around for it? I hate to break it to you, but outside of myself and maybe one friend nobody I know in person knows a single thing about game or the pick-up artists. The only time I’ve seen people link to those sorts of blogs outside of the manosphere it’s either to laugh at them, rage at them, or criticize them (the last ones tend to be the most intelligent).
So yeah, people will need to google, but that doesn’t really help game too much.
Off the top of my head, here’s one: http://deepstrength.wordpress.com
Yes, it’s Christian. And? JB quotes Proverbs. You may have to wade through the Christian stuff, but it’s no different than having to wade through the immoral stuff on the other Game blogs.
4) Which leads us to: What does game teach us that nothing else does or ever has, and which all of the major practitioners and teachers of the subject have in common. The answer? How to pick up sluts. Game thrives in feminism.
EVEN IF you teach people to go to Rollo and Roissy to strengthen their marriage, by trying to popularize them you are also going to popularize a lot of techniques to help men get no-strings attached sex without marriage. How many are going to listen when you say “Wait! It’ll hurt society in the long run!”
4)
LikeLike
“EVEN IF you teach people to go to Rollo and Roissy to strengthen their marriage, by trying to popularize them you are also going to popularize a lot of techniques to help men get no-strings attached sex without marriage. How many are going to listen when you say “Wait! It’ll hurt society in the long run!””
Of course that is where all manosphere-guys agree – MRA,MGTOWs,Traditionalists,PUAs and Game-aware guys. It is destructive, but the first destructive force now is not in rampant Alpha-female-hoarding. It is in hypergamy and feminine imperative going on crack. Women are even encouraged to sleep around with Alphas and psychopathic Dark Triad guys in their 20s while the nice guys should wait around until she ages and bestows her fat ass upon him at the tender age of 35.
All guys – even the most hardcore PUAs know that it is best for civilization to marry young and stay monogamous. But how are the few guys with Game going to change that? The media, the economic powers that be, the entire academic world and most women nowadays blast away at this religious doctrine called feminism non-stop. Good luck fighting the entire US navy armed with a crossbow.
But you – denying ALL THE FEMINIST CRAP and just accusing men for using Game in marriage or even in hedonistic behavior – you are the biggest hypocrite. It is fine for women in their prime fucking around from ages 18 to 27, but if men are doing it for a longer time period as their SMV decays slower, then they are monsters. You want them to use Game to become strong married men in conventional relationships in an ever decaying world – some of them will do so, but yes – more will just continue fucking around, since the end goal is a Brave New World of constant fornication without attachment.
LikeLike
But you – denying ALL THE FEMINIST CRAP and just accusing men for using Game in marriage or even in hedonistic behavior – you are the biggest hypocrite.
That’s hilarious – I don’t think people should go to the perverts for love advice, therefore I deny “all the feminist crap”?
You are one of the least self-aware people I’ve ever communicated with. If you think I “deny the feminist crap”, I don’t really know what to tell you.
Basically you’re saying that since women have Cosmo it’s not fair that men don’t have their own version.
LikeLike
Does not matter. I know you are a good guy and also aware of Game – probably more in the direction of Christian bloggers like Dalrock or Athol Kay.
We differ on what “perversion” may be & how valuable the insights of Pick Up Artists really were. In fact I think that our differences would be less than you might imagine if we were to meet in person.
You may not believe it, but most PUAs are actually traditionalists at heart and in the 1950s 90% of them would be happily married and have 3 children playing in their backyard. I have met a few of them and know this to be true. I also met strong Christian Alpha man who were by far more spiritual than the priests of their churches. They had little problems in their relationshps.
Either way – Game to me is also applied female psychology which is different than the more straightforward male sexual strategy. In the past the Christian elders obviously knew of this and restricted in a way some of the more drastic psychological factors within women (Alpha fucks/Beta bucks, Hypergamy etc.) by stable marriage bonds for the good of civilization. Alpha mate hoarding societies as well as matriarchal civiliztions like the Chinese Mosuo are just mindbogglingly stupid approaches and produce static backwards countries without much science & progress – sometimes not even a written language.
And I think we both agree that stable bonds with a loving father and mother are the best nuclear units for any society – be it now or in 10.000 years.
How each of us deals with the current rotten times may be different though. Some are just too cynical to try to be traditional in a world of rampant debauchery. That is their choice and that does not necesserily make them terrible human beings. Those who created and funded this system by design are evil, but that is another matter.
LikeLike