Image created by Elliot Rodger and reproduced by Mail Online.
Today I decided to explore #YesAllWomen. Nothing in the tweets themselves was anything I hadn’t already heard dozens of times (I’m already aware that as a man I’ll never know what it’s like to dress in such a way as to attract as much attention as possible only to find that doing so attracts unwanted attention), but what struck me was the sheer volume of tweets. Women have definitely noticed what happened in Santa Barbara.
By any objective measure, Sandy Hook was a far greater tragedy than what happened in Santa Barbara, yet Santa Barbara seems to have inspired a much more intense reaction. It’s not as useful for gun-grabbers because lots of the deaths were stabbings (and there’s considerable overlap between gun-grabbers and feminists), the deaths of innocent children tug at our heartstrings more than the deaths of innocent young adults, and the body count was far lower.
Yet Santa Barbara inspires emotions that strike me as every bit as intense, and probably more so.
And there’s good reason for it.
As a capitalist, I’m accustomed to fending off countless accusations of heartlessness. I believe that any public assistance should be the responsibility of the states instead of the federal government, but even when we get the feds out of it, I believe that private charities, communities, and churches will do far more good for the receivers of aid while doing far less harm to the economy as a whole.
Theoretically, under my system we could be overwhelmed with abject poverty, millions of lost souls with nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no hope of any life other than starvation unless the government (and only the government) does something about it.
Because of this possibility, most lefties advocate “spreading the [financial] wealth around” to ensure that “everybody gets their piece of the pie”. Yet simultaneously these caring lefties advocate a ruthless dog-eat-dog sexual marketplace in which it’s perfectly acceptable for 10-20% of men to virtually monopolize sexual access to all of society’s fertile females.
Okay, not quite monopolize: it’s perfectly acceptable for a reliable, unexciting guy to marry a 31 year-old after she’s “found herself” for a decade or so. If he can’t get laid in his twenties, sucks to be him. If he wants to get married when he’s young, he’s probably a misogynist pig who just wants to tie some poor girl down with babies.
Tell a king of the financial markets that he should
consent to having stolen share his assets for the good of society, lefties applaud and nod in agreement. Tell a queen of the sexual markets (a young woman) that she should share her assets for the good of society, and you deserve ostracism and/or death.
I’m of the sincere opinion that no unmarried person of either gender is entitled to sex from anyone else. Were I to have told this to Elliot Rodger, feminists worldwide would have nodded in approval. Were I to tell this to Louis CK’s chunky friend, they’d want my head on a stick.
We’ve every right to confiscate as much wealth as possible from the rich guy, no matter the years of his life spent training for and performing his job. We’ve no right whatsoever to expect that a woman spend so much as fifteen minutes with a guy she doesn’t think is cute.
His valuable assets: everybody’s. Her valuable assets: hers and hers alone.
Do I think that we should in any way force women to “spread the wealth around” in order to satiate the needs of incels among us? Hell no, even though quoting portions of this post out of context might lead lefties to think I do. I’m merely pointing out the inconsistency of lefties who believe that good fortune should be shared, unless that good fortune happens to be theirs.
Socialistic economic philosophies operate under the assumption that the economy is like a pie from which everybody is rewarded a slice. One of the many reasons their philosophies are flawed is that the economy is not like a pie. If I have a big piece, it doesn’t mean you’re stuck with a really small piece because of my greed; we can make the whole pie bigger and both have more. Wealth isn’t stagnant. We can create more of it, so that even if my piece is a whole lot bigger than yours, your piece can increase in size too, so long as we increase the size of the pie. My economic benefit is not necessary to your detriment.
In the sexual and marriage marketplaces, this isn’t the case. In fact, in these markets the pie analogy is actually quite apt. We can create wealth at a faster rate than we create people, but unless we engage in some serious social engineering, for every new woman we create, we’ll probably be creating a new man. Whereas if I have more money it doesn’t necessarily mean somebody else will be stuck with less, if I have a harem of five hot babes, by necessity four guys will be deprived of sexual affection.
Economic imbalance bugs the hell out of the left, even though wealth disparities in no way cause outright deprivation. Yet they explicitly favor sexual imbalances that do cause men to be literally deprived.
Young modern females implicitly equate their vaginae with our penises: something they can use to “score” and “have fun”.
That may be how she sees it, but regardless of how casually she might give it away to whomever turns her on, to us it’s far more than that. Feminine sexual affection is the force that inspires great poetry, that gets men to get up for work each day to contribute to the economy, that pushes us to achieve greatness, or maybe just do what has to be done.
For with a woman and children at our side, there’s more to life than just me. A man with a family has a stake in his community, an interest in creating a better world, incentive to be productive and responsible, and the sense that he’s part of something that’s going to last far longer than his very own life.
The traditional family structure provided this for most men. Yes, there was always sexual imbalance, but when one man/one woman was the norm, damn near all of us had some sort of stake in tomorrow. An awkward beta still had value, even if it was just to his wife and child. He might be at the bottom of the economic totem pole, but he had incentive to strive regardless, for his wife and child depended on it.
So it’s not just that they “can’t get laid”, it’s that we’re writing omegas off entirely. The leftist structure of economic equality (in theory, never quite in practice) with sexual haves and have-nots is far more damaging to our national soul than a world of economic dog-eat-dog in which most guys get a woman anyway could ever be.
Hence, the emotional reaction to Rodger’s massacre. As I’ve made clear before, Rodger is a villain, a man who failed.
Nevertheless, subconsciously I suspect that this might be the moment in which millions of young women are getting there first sense that something might be wrong. The infinite cries of “rape culture” notwithstanding, young women today have it exceptionally good. They’re showered with attention from the men they don’t want, can have as much or little sex as they want with no apparent (or at least immediate) consequence, and they’re free to value only those traits in men that turn them on. They’ve no need to even consider his character.
Thus far, the men who inspire no tingle have seemed perfectly safe to ignore. Now, they’re beginning to suspect that this system of infinite pleasure for me might inspire some sort of blowback. I doubt they’re particularly inclined to sympathize with awkward guys (and the second Rodger pulled the trigger he forsook any claims to sympathy), but it’s just a bit harder to see them as entirely irrelevant.
For although it still doesn’t occur to them that nobody’s going to pay for their birth control if everyone’s given up on life and just delivers pizzas for a living, the notion that the dorky guy in math class is of no consequence just might have been threatened. If he’s completely ignored forever there’s no telling if he’ll blow a gasket or just drop out of society, but what happens to him might mean something for the rest of us.
A fellow human being? Not quite yet. Potential cause for concern? Maybe. Is this the first hint that the Red Death might somehow find its way into the ball, that the wallflowers might crash the party, that her orbiters might not help her move next Thursday?
I can’t say for certain, but I know it’s caused a stir.
The first two columns of Rodger’s diagram are accurate, the third not so much. Rarely will men of any status have the incentive to kill masses of women. This is a good thing.
What’s far more likely is for the male column to wind up shorter than the female one. They won’t turn into crosses like Rodger, they’ll move to the Philippines, find a cabin somewhere in the Rockies, stop developing new social media networks, and somehow not have any wealth to tax. Women will assert their freedom to bang whomsoever they choose, and the men they don’t choose will just stop showing up.
Which might be fine were the men they choose not so frequently objectively useless.
For all the feminist talk of Rodger’s sense of entitlement, it’s women who feel entitled to the fruits of male labor: clean streets, indoor plumbing, televisions, and iPhones.
All men wanted in exchange was sex.
But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.
And that’s when civilization collapses. I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.
Pingback: Foreshadowing | Manosphere.com
Women jump at the chance to use the word ‘entitlement’ against men when it’s not even that men feel entitled, they just felt that they performed the prescribed script (as they knew it under blue pill feminine imperative conditioning) as the successful path towards relationships/romance/dating that would ultimately lead to sex. Nowhere is it implied that they feel entitled along the way – they feel like they ‘earned’ it and are rejected. If they felt ‘entitled’ well then.. they’d probably rape you to boot seeing as how they’re entitled to it no?
But even farther than that, the real reason it’s such a solipsistic thing for a woman to say to a man who’s tried in earnest and genuine intent to strike up a romantic relationship with the hope of it becoming a sexual relationship – is that by and large, women can never ever come close to experiencing the male experience of being ‘invisible’. Male and Female attraction are on 2 different spectrum’s. Where a womans attractiveness is relatively stable on the visual spectrum where all changes to enhance attraction ability lies on that slider, male attractiveness to females is the punchline of jokes and internet memes of 427 control dials/buttons and switches that must be attuned just right before it it noticed, usually ON TOP of having to have exquisite, punching above your weight good looks too.
Women are born with the privilege of being biologically desired at all times by most all men so long as they hold the look/shape of femininity. Even if their personality deviates drastically from feminine to psycho man hating bitch, the visual representation of femininity is enough to arouse attention from men. Most every woman who can control her weight will never go for a lack of attention or desire by the males of her species.
Contrast that against the men, in some cases very good looking men, men who are successful in many aspects of life, and can provide and create and be a producer to the society – still fail when it comes to women because they are incapable of triggering the lizard portion of ‘civilized western womens’ mind. And until they either discover red pill or game, they are doomed to continually fail under the provisions prescribed by the feminine imperative and feminist dogma on how to approach and engage with females for the express purpose of courtship ranging from be nice, be a gentleman, have a good job, don’t be a rapist, be a good shoulder to cry on, be there for her, respect her (even if she does nothing to warrant it), and always ask for consent before going in for a kiss (thus killing any spontaneity to spark the lizard brain tingles)
If every woman was suddenly stripped of her ‘femaleness’, her innate sexual primacy, and men were no longer biologically compelled to seek them out for mating (imagine a shot that inhibited mens desire or attraction – MGTOW in a needle) and women no longer were chased, sought, desired or ‘visible’ to men…
if the male gaze ended tomorrow, there would be a mass die off of women claiming their own lives due to depression, insecurity, feeling of abandonment. No, they need it, desire it, crave it. In order to survive they must have it at all costs. It doesn’t matter if they are aware of it or not.. all that matters is that they know men will continue to seek them out solely because they are women.
They feel entitled to it.
Awesome comment. I might turn this into a post or something similar.
For your use if you do decide to make that future post. This image says it all.
This is brilliant. Always good to hear from you, M3.
Excellent, as always. Thank you
Great post. It occured to me that Elliot Rodger was no more entitled than a typical leftist.
“A fellow human being? Not quite yet. Potential cause for concern? Maybe. ” – Exactly.
Very good article. The conclusions are what really nailed it home. Elliot Rodger may have been an outlier in his reaction to female rejection, he is certainly the norm when it comes to such a thing. And most men are not violent and aggressive toward women. Instead, they put up walls of inactivity and silence. Good for the individual, not good for the civilization.
Unfortunately, the ball is in the women’s court now. It is up to them to decide the fate of our civilization. Sadly, I doubt many of them realize this.
I doubt it, too. Very few women have any idea how much POWER they have or how their decisions might have any impact on anything beyond their own noses.
Their weightiest decisions typically involve which shoes to wear with the outfit of the day. We should not be at all surprised how they vote.
There are some women do indeed know the power that they have, but are not often held accountable for any negative consequences using or abusing this power wreaks. So, they can act with impugnity and don’t even have to feign ignorance when it’s brought to their attention that their wake has become someone else’s aftermath. That said, it’s always helpful to temper this bleak perspective with Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
A sense of entitlement is the opposite of gratitude, and the whiners at #YesAllWomen and their ilk don’t exactly strike me as grateful for much of anything.
“ For all the feminist talk of Rodger’s sense of entitlement, it’s women who feel entitled to the fruits of male labor: clean streets, indoor plumbing, televisions, and iPhones.
“All men wanted in exchange was sex.
“But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.”
Well, you see, the counterargument to this is that times have changed. Women can earn their own money, and they don’t need a man to give them goodies, or financial support, or anything else. Leave aside the obvious retort that the bloggers advocating this and pointing it out are servicing a niche of middle to upper middle class women with college educations and good paying jobs. A growing majority of women don’t get there because of “mistakes” like a divorce, baby mamahood, or general all around depravity and lack of future time orientation.
But there’s something more important that women want that only a man can give them, and that’s status in relation to society at large and to other women in the herd. They want status; in particular the status that comes with being able to put “Mrs.” ahead of one’s name. Women absolutely CRAVE that status, because it means acceptance. It means validation and affirmation of her worth and value as a woman.
It’s important also because that status means she now has two things: a father for her children (whether or not he actually IS the father is a different story entirely), and expanded choices – work and be DINKs. Kids. Stay at home mom. Working mom. Work part time on a mommy track and take care of kids.
We are hearing the results of this already with the constant bleats of “where have all the good men gone”, etc.
No matter how independent a woman is – the one thing she wants from men is to get the ‘Mr. Big’ of men, the final piece of the ‘have it all’ puzzle so that she can gloriously thumb her nose towards her hypergamous sisters and say triumphantly ‘i have the man you all desire’.
Women who put career and fun before seeking out relationships and honest interactions with men in search of true courtship, are women who truly feel entitled because they are equally Elliot Rogers. They believe all their exploits, careerism and inherent ‘awesomeness’ have led them to a place where they are ‘owed’ and ‘entitled’ to an apex alpha status man. The true misandry (and those yin to Rogers yang) is that these women see the alpha men they desire as nothing more than padding to their own status, male arm candy to display to her jealous sisters. He isn’t a person she considers as his own individual human being – but as an object she is owed because dammit – she’s ENTITLED TO HAVE IT ALL just as feminism told her she is entitled to.
Rogers mental illness coupled with his parents coddling and spoiling his narcissism led him to believe the universe owed him hot blond women because he was affluent enough to have always gotten what he wanted. Feminism is a mental illness that coddles women and spoils their narcissism to believe the universe owes them Mr. Big because they have a degree, work in an air conditioned office on wall street, and have enjoyed their youth partying and riding the carousel. The only difference between the 2 is there was no mental help for Rogers to correct his mental disorder – while feminism is a mental illness that far from being treated – is actually encouraged and held in high regard in society.
For all their whining of how we objectify them, what are the men anonymously paying for their child care through the welfare state? Objects. What are the men getting frivorced and being forced into destitution through child support and alimony payments? Objects. And yes, what are the men who provide them with a good hard pounding? Objects.
They want status; in particular the status that comes with being able to put “Mrs.” ahead of one’s name.
Yes, this is true. But along with the Mrs. must come a semblance of control within the relationship. That Mrs. means very little if she doesn’t have control as well. As far as the (young) herd is concerned, it would be better to be single (and fabulous).
As for the old herd? It’s hard to say. At that point there is a serious dissonance. Many woman say they would rather be single and maintain control, but when they are lying alone in bed at night? I wonder . . .
“Women can earn their own money, and they don’t need a man to give them goodies, or financial support, or anything else. Leave aside the obvious retort that the bloggers advocating this and pointing it out are servicing a niche of middle to upper middle class women with college educations and good paying jobs.”
And when we’re dealing with low-income women, they do everything possible to negate their “need” for an individual man through welfare, free birth control, and other wealth re-distribution schemes. Low-income women most decidedly need masculine help, they just make Uncle Sam pay for it and call it something else.
This epitomizes the feminine sense of entitlement. We OWE them free child care.
You’re correct about status, but I think even more importantly they NEED men for our masculinity itself. They want goodies from whatever source possible, but they NEED a strong man to show them what’s what.
The problem is that we’ve distorted the sexual market to such an extent that the man who provides for her financial needs can be an entirely different dude from the dude who provides for her feminine needs.
Excellent analysis on the economic realities of the sexual marketplace. Women need to understand that you can’t have your cake and eat it too, otherwise the cake itself will eventually explode one day.
Thanks. I’m pretty happy about coming up with that distinction between economic and sexual markets and how that relates to socialism/free love. This is something I’ll be exploring in more depth.
I’ll watch for that with interest. This is an excellent rundown of a lot of what I’ve seen out there in the past week. Of course, there are the truly, deeply horrifying blasphemies (white knights, almost one and all) that open their self-flagellation by claiming that all men are part of and cause of rape culture… but those might be completely beyond redemption. The abasement is vomit-worthy. I’m waiting for my nausea to pass before trying to counter any of it.
The first two frames of that graphic are eerily similar to graphics I made a long time ago on my blog. Needless to say, that is disturbing in light of the third frame.
Good post Martel. I’ve written plenty of times about how messed up the current Marriage/Sexual Marketplace is, especially for those men who don’t make the “cut.”
As for the stir that this caused, well, the thing to keep in mind is that this is how a crazy person responds. What is far more meaningful is how the non-crazy men in a similar position will respond. They can cause far more harm than this delusional young man, and in a whole host of different ways- not all of them violent.
Disturbing only if you’ve the intention to make frame 3 come to pass.
“What is far more meaningful is how the non-crazy men in a similar position will respond. They can cause far more harm than this delusional young man, and in a whole host of different ways- not all of them violent.”
Exactly. I don’t think Rodger will be the last, but his ilk won’t cause too much harm beyong the immdiate victims. As intense and horrid as it is for them, it will never be most of us.
But the dudes drifting away, earning just enough to live on, vanishing to other countries, refusing to let women on the liferafts first, these small acts by individuals can add up to wreak total havoc.
A similar version of those graphics (the first two at least) appears on Aunt Giggles’ (hooking up smart) website.
Of course, she took it down shortly after according to Pro-Male AntiFeminist Tech.
The guys stepping up to rescue women from their bad choices are slowly waking up to the suffering (for themselves) that such charity will create.
May it advance further everyday.
“the notion that the dorky guy in math class is of no consequence just might have been threatened. If he’s completely ignored forever there’s no telling if he’ll blow a gasket or just drop out of society, but what happens to him might mean something for the rest of us.
“But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.
“And that’s when civilization collapses. I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.”
Well, yes, if the average man can’t get sex, he has no incentive to improve. And if he has no incentives, then he languishes. Multiply that by 10 million or so, and yeah, you have a recipe for civilizational collapse.
But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so. Are women drawing the connection between collapse and any role that they themselves might play in that? I doubt it. Not because they are stupid, but because they just don’t connect the dots. And they don’t connect the dots because they don’t have to.
Female financial “independence” is the key Women have pushed HARD for this, and they got it. To me, financial independence for a woman means not having to answer to anyone, especially not a man. I won’t go through all the dots, but at bottom it means total sexual freedom as well. She doesn’t have to answer to a man, ever. She doesn’t have to be accountable to a husband, even if she has one. She need not marry. And if she does marry she need not stay married. If she stays married she need not care for that relationship in any way. She has no obligations to it whatsoever. She certainly doesn’t have any duty to have sex with the man she calls “husband”. The marital relationship is completely optional, voluntary, and obligation-free while being rich with benefits.
Novaseeker has pointed out elsewhere that female “independence” is considered a crowning cultural achievement in the US. It’s a permanent “gain” that will never, ever be rolled back. In the main, women are never, ever going to voluntarily return to the kitchens and nurseries; never to care for home, heart and hearth. They will never, ever, put themselves in a position of ever having to depend on a man ever again. According to our overlords, those are archaic, quaint throwbacks that rest on the ash heap of history where they belong.
So the point to me is that female “independence” is here to stay. It’s not going to change. So I don’t think that the female response is going to be “something’s wrong” with society. It’s “something’s wrong with men and they need to man up and start accepting their new place in the new world order”. It’s “men have a duty to protect women from random crazy men”. It’s “men have to accept that most of them will not get sex”.
But “men still have to change my oil, take away my garbage, fix my iPhone, arrest and put away criminals, fight the wars, pour my drinks, serve my food, clean the toilets, and do all the other things that make my life safe and convenient. Because I need to go to my cushy office job as the deputy undersecretary to the assistant associate vice president of BigCorp, and then I need to meet up with Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer at the bar after his Friday night show.”
“But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so.”
If by “suspecting” you mean logically rationally ascertaining that, I agree.
Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly, but I meant something more along the lines of “sensing a disturbance in The Force”. This one touched a nerve, and the way they’re universally decrying “entitlement” indicates to me a simultaneous defensiveness and projection. “She doth protest too much”, and she don’t protest like this unless she knows that something’s wrong. A spectre has flashed within her range of vision at the rockin’ party with all the cute guys, and by repeating what she’s told herself for years up until this point, she’s hoping she can convince herself that the spectre’s gone, the party’s still rockin’.
“Female financial ‘independence’ is the key Women have pushed HARD for this, and they got it.”
They’ve gotten it only if “independence” means anything but: it’s actually power. Independent women don’t need government-funded birth control, but “empowered” women most certainly do. Ditto for iPhone repairs, law enforcement, etc.
So I agree with what you’re describing if you replace “independence” with “empowerment”, even though they can’t tell the difference.
Nevertheless, in this case “power” is a zero-sum game in which more power for them means less power for the rest of us. They get more power only when we have less of it, and this incident showed that *gasp*, not everybody’s particularly happy about it, and *gasp* them not being happy about it might have consequences.
The only way what they want can come even close to working is if they damn near enslave the rest of us, garnishing our wages so the modern independent woman can reliably depend on the money and services, forcing men to create and earn without getting what they want most (sex) in return. It’s unsustainable. We know it. They refuse to see it, but deep down I think they might sense it.
The loud cries are primarly meant to assuage their own deepest fears.
“But are women suspecting that? I don’t think so. Are women drawing the connection between collapse and any role that they themselves might play in that? I doubt it. Not because they are stupid, but because they just don’t connect the dots.”
As long as they flip the switch and the light comes on.. life is peechy. As long as the iPhone can recharge and get a signal from the tower.. the world is fine. As long as there is water coming from the tap to make her morning coffee.. there is nothing to worry about.
Just go back in time to events like the Great Northeast_blackout_of_2003, or the Ice storms, or Katrina, or any event that takes society out of it’s comfort zone for more than a few hours. The panic. The difference between then and the future?
There won’t be enough men who care enough to go out and rebuild it all. And once the power stays off long enough – then women will understand the role they played in collapsing the grand bargain that allowed society to thrive and function as it did for so long.
I want to believe that Martel is right; that women collectively believe that Elliot Rodger means something more than just some sick f*ck who couldn’t get laid and wanted to burn up the world for it; that there really is something very wrong.
I want to believe that Elliot Rodger is making women collectively see that the entire society is terminally ill and that the chance to save the patient is slipping away with each passing day.
I want to believe that ER is making women see that this society is creating more Elliot Rodgers.
But I’m not sure I do.
I think women see Elliot Rodger as definitive evidentiary proof that the 80% of men they don’t notice and don’t care about are sex crazed, sex starved maniac wannabe thugs and criminals who are one nuclear rejection away from committing violent felonies.
I think that we will see more and more statements along the lines of “See?! SEE??!! DO YOU SEE IT NOW?? There are no real nice men, There are only faux “niceguys ™ who all just want to get into our pants!! We were right all along about all you ugly, awkward, unattractive men! You need to be quarantined and KEPT AWAY from us!!”
I think they see the events of last weekend as proof that they, and society, are justified in avoiding and discarding these men as unimportant and dangerous. I think that they will use this as further proof that more and more men are rightly being pushed to the fringes of society because, well, that’s where they belong.
Look. I’m not saying that women have to start sleeping with these men. Far from it. I’m simply saying that this is going to be used as proof that awkward, socially misadjusted men are going to be viewed not as a symptom of what’s wrong; but as the cause; and therefore must be removed.
Sadly, I was correct. .
@ deti: I never considered Walsh to be particularly fair when describing the manosphere, but that was a horribly deceptive hit-piece, pure and simple.
Nevertheless, point taken.
This country appears ripe for the taking from a more stronger and robust patriarchal culture:
Good article. I think you’re on to something. My only quibble would be the point that women depend on men keeping the streets clean, fixing the plumbing, repairing iPhones, etc. Well, they do. Bu as more American men ‘drop out,’ these functions will be performed by imported labor. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s one of the driving forces behind the Washington elite’s immigrationist ideology. Already in my community, I’m seeing increasing numbers of white American girls dating and marrying dutiful Asian beta males.
Interesting insight here — the notion that “progressives” are unwilling to tolerate economic inequality but actively promote inequality of sexual opportunity is a compelling one.
I often like to draw attention to Michel Houllebecq’s observation in his novel “Whatever” in this respect:
“It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphael Tisserand belongs in the victors’ camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished. Certain people win on both levels; others lose on both. Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.”
Incidentally the French title of the novel translates as the phrase used in this passage: “extension of the domain of the struggle”. You seem to be suggesting a *replacement* of that domain — replacing the economic with the sexual.
I’m not sure what you mean by you last paragraph (replacing versus extending), so you may or may not be right.
Still, a fascinating passage. Thanks for the comment.
Pingback: Virtue Without Force | ‘Reality’ Doug
The crux of leftism is the premise that inequality is inherently oppressive. It is a twisting of the biblical truth of the rich and powerful abusing their power over the poorer ans weaker in the pronouncements of judgement against ancient israel. They do not realize that hierarchy not only be a way by which curses flow downward but blessings too. There is also the motive of envy to justify such an act of redistribution. It is rooted in the sin of coveting.
Pingback: Doubling Down | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/06/04 | Free Northerner
Women have excellent antennae for trends.
What we need to do as men is to recognize the early signs of guys like Elliot who are on the brink, and intervene. A strong brother-figure might have been enough to prevent him from snapping as he did. He probably could have been shown that he was far from alone in his misery, and that the solution was to go “on strike” as many others have done. This requires the same celibacy, but at least it is deliberate, and with purpose. Elliot may have been a narcissist, or not. But I think most people can be reached with the right approach.
How fat are you
I mean are you like just kinda fat or like really really fat
My money is on you being about 75 pounds overweight but that’s just kinda my gut and I could easily be wrong
Nice try, but you’re off by about 100 lbs. I’m actually about 175 overweight.
However, I can still do a push-up if you don’t define “push-up” too strictly.
Maybe if you stopped being a fat who makes ignorant blog posts and went out and made yourself interesting women would fuck you
makes u think
cause yeah there’s nothing women desire more than fat dudes who make dumb blog posts
Doh! You’re comment epitomized banal feminist shaming techniques so perfectly that I thought you were a satirical troll.
But it turns out you actually think that what kind of shape I’m in (or where I live, or if I have a neckbeard, small penis, etc.) has some sort of bearing on whether or not I’m right. You’re not playing the part of an unthinking moron, you’re the real thing!
The fact is, I’m in pretty decent shape (15% body fat)–not amazing, but not enough to turn women off by any means.
For example, last weekend in my neighborhood bar, a women I barely knew flashed me her chest, grabbed my ass, and offered to be my whore. I didn’t go for it for moral reasons, but she’s objectively pretty damn hot (stripper to be precise).
But even if that weren’t true, even if I were a lardass, even if my penis could only be found with a microscope, IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON ANYTHING I’VE SAID IN THIS POST.
Yet you and your ilk are incapable of actually addressing any arguments that don’t fit into your dumbass worldview, so you go the cheap route: name-calling, dodging the subject, and trying to shame anyone you disagree with into shutting up.
It might work on somebody else, but it sure as hell won’t work on me. You merely demonstrate how moronic my critcs usually are and prove my points for me.
If you want to actually address what I have to say, go for it; I’m capable of seeming respectful even with dolts like you.
Otherwise, go away.
that’s a lot of words you spent writing instead of not being fat and uninteresting
I didn’t read what you said but okay
At least Tennessee gives a concise concession speech.