Counter-Currents
58 words / 90 minutes
The first hour of the new episode of Me ne frego is F. Roger Devlin on the Woman Question in light of the recent anti-woman campaign on the “Alt Right.” The last half-hour is in Swedish. You can listen here:
Listen to “Me ne frego – episode 9 with Roger Devlin on the Woman Question” on Spreaker.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
21 comments
Mr. Devlin: Like millions of White Americans, I was born out of wedlock to “that kind of woman,” or as your internet sycophants like to put it, a filthy skank whore.
How do you think disrespecting people’s mothers, who raised us under very difficult circumstances when they could have taken the easier road and had an abortion, helps promote White solidarity.
That is what this is supposed to be about, after all.
Isn’t it?
@ Lexi. For nationalists, that’s exactly what it should be about. Unfortunately many nationalists get tangled up in their right wing baggage and end up alienating those they should be working with.
I’m genuinely sorry if the comments about single mothers hurt you because of your own personal background, but at the end of the day it’s a question of promoting good behaviour and discouraging bad isn’t it? The fact is that children are known to do better in two-parent, married households than ones where they are raised by one parent, which statistically tend to do worse and be more prone to anti-social behaviour. This is a statistical fact, and also makes rational sense; why would both men and women have specific hormonal reactions to parenthood if both weren’t needed in raising children? With this in mind it makes perfect sense for us to look upon raising children out of wedlock as worse than first finding a dependable mate who will commit to raising children with you.
Now perhaps your own mother really was one of those that people that was stuck raising a child on her own through no fault of her own. It doesn’t matter. Unless you disincentivize a behaviour it will continue and increase. And that would be bad for our society and our race. Even if it’s not especially a compassionate thing to say, I think this is an issue that matters more than your own personal sentiments.
A few thoughts:
(1) Of course, two-parent households are the ideal, which is why men should man up and marry a girl if they get her pregnant. At common law, unmarried fathers had no rights whatsoever. More rec, failure to marry the mother of your child meant you were presumed unfit, and another man could adopt your child over your objection. MGTOW never, so far as I can tell, shames men, unless it’s for failing to shame women.
I have seen so-called White nationalist men viciously shame another man for considering proposing to a single Mom, apparently totally unconcerned with the well-being of the child, whom they referred to as “another man’s spawn.” Adoptive fathers are “cucks” to be shamed and ridiculed. BTW, this obsession with biological descent is the impetus behind extreme seclusion of women you see in some societies. If men demand absolute purity, fathers don’t take chances, and husbands won’t let their wives leave the house and may well cut off their clitoris. Women are whores; they can’t help it. This extreme sex segregation is not healthy for reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere.
(2) Your comments presume that shaming is the only way to influence behavior. This is the problem with MGTOW: ugly, and unwarranted assumptions about women’s character. Rational persuasion is dismissed out-of-hand, because of course women are irrational, though conniving at the same time. The boomers decided that we girls should all go to college. They didn’t shame us into doing that. They gave us advice we thought made sense at the time, and we followed it, in droves.
Mainstream society demands that we consider everything equal to everything else, because not to do so would hurt people’s feelings. MGTOW, on the other hand, insists not just that we say what needs to be said, but that we actually make it a point to hurt people’s feelings as much as possible. The more viciously we insult people, the better.
Both of these approaches are incorrect. Your approach is the correct one. Just speak openly and honestly about these things. There is simply no excuse for the vicious insults MGTOW hurls at people’s mothers, especially not in these degenerate times.
I thank you for your courteous and thought-out reply. Given your first comment, I admit I half didn’t expect that. Seconding Mr Midjord, I don’t think Devlin was insulting anybody, especially given that he stated that he himself was raised by a single mother.
Now on to the substance of your comment: I agree obviously that shaming is not the only way to influence behaviour, and that overagressive shaming can even be counter-productive at times, but shaming nonetheless is and always has been an important way to influence behaviour in society at large. A healthy society will always place stigma on unhealthy behaviour and lifestyles, even if the people engaged in it are doing so through no fault of their own. Men and women by and large will always avoid mates with serious issues, be they physical or mental or what have you, that could compromise the well-being and success of their families, and that is the way it should be. A strong stigma against single-motherhood is indeed a large motivating factor in many societies against women making decisions that could have them end up raising illegitimate children.
As to the question of adopting and marrying single-mothers, I’m inclined to agree with you. As long as it’s within the race, rearing White children that have been deprived of fathers is doing society a favour. But consider this: 1) The biological imperative to continue your own biological line (the line of your forefathers), and thus place your efforts and resources into that instead of into someone else’s offspring (thus the hatred of cuckoldry) is something that has been built into humans and other animals through millions of years of natural selection and so can’t just be dismissed as MGTOW fanaticism and expected to go away. 2) Also consider that, whatever may have been the case for you or for any number of other people, women who end up as single mothers are likely to have been less responsible and have worse judgement than women who did not, and that doesn’t spell good news for anyone who would get involved with her. Again #NotAll, but part of having good judgement is being able to look at trends and probabilities. That said, if a man recognizes this but nonetheless chooses to enter into a relationship with a single mother and raise her (White) child(ren), then that is his business and it’s not for anyone to shame him for it.
Sure, I understand completely where you are coming from, and a man should seriously consider whether he is able to set his own genetic interests aside and raise a child not biologically his. If he can’t, that’s ok. He can do something else for his people.
I also agree that single-motherhood, all else equal, is indicative of poor judgment. I would also say that a woman’s conduct after becoming a single mother will tell the full story. That is, is she focused on her child or engaging in self-destructive behaviors and spending time with unseemly characters?
Lexi, this is a very strange comment, and those words about women who have kids out of wedlock are your own… On the contrary, Mr. Devlin said that he himself had been raised by a single mother… and that it is unfortunate that more and more kids have to grow up with an absent father. That’s hardly a controversial statement.
I believe that we all agree that we are not in any way criticizing single mothers, but the society that makes it so… Women certainly cannot be blamed for being born in this destructive time.
Thank you for your kind words.
However, I must disagree with your statement that these words are “my own.” First of all, Devlin said in this interview that single mothers are ruined because no man would want “that kind of woman” or something to that effect. Online, much crasser language is used. White nationalist communities use awful insults like this all the time. If a man with actual manners asks them to tone it down and stop gratuitously insulting people’s mothers. the MGTOW spite is turned against him and he is White Knight-shamed into silence. The situation has gotten completely out of control.
I never really spent any time on Daily Stormer, because I understood that to be a space for young men, some even teenagers. I did spend some time on TRS forums, but was eventually bullied off, allegedly on the grounds that men should have “just one space” to be men. I thought, “Well, technically that’s two, plus the whole manosphere, but then who’s counting? Of course, it has now become clear that “just one space” doesn’t mean one or even two or three online communities for White men only, it means the alt-Right as a whole.
And honestly, I wouldn’t much care except that the men in these communities compete with each other to see just who can be the most insulting and degrading to women. I wouldn’t care about that either, except that they are turning this movement into a laughingstock.
As I recall, I was referring to the empirical fact that many men avoid women who have already born another man’s baby – i.e., the odds of the dating market are stacked against single mothers as compared to never-married women.
Fair enough. I’ll take you at your word, but I would encourage you to go back and give it a listen.
I don’t agree with all you say, but I very much appreciate your interest in promoting monogamous marriage, which I believe is in all of our best interests.
Hi Lexi- Dr. Devlin’s comment caught me off guard as well on the first listen, but I think there’s a more charitable interpretation.
I think what he’s saying is that some women who end up having children outside of wedlock do so as a result of impulsive sexual behavior and men won’t want to marry someone who might act on sexual impulses and have an extramarital affair. Coversely, the same would apply to men I think.
Regarding your experience online, there are a lot of immature men out there who don’t know how to interact with women and this recent situation is totally insane.
I’m lucky enough to have a WN circle IRL, and I think these men are respectful to single moms and some young, single men would still consider dating them. Obviously, the concern stated above is still present. However, sometimes the single mother is a better mate because she’s inclined to be more traditional after knowing what it’s like to raise a child on her own. I don’t know anyone IRL (thankfully!) who would say she should be rejected solely on the basis of her single motherhood.
I think Dr. Devlin is definitely in the category of the more honorable IRL men, and his book is great. So I’d give him the benefit of the doubt with that statement.
This thought of Devlin is for me very important because I had never thought of it: that “liberated” sexuality does NOT lead to more sex but just to a different pattern, namely the more archaic “winner takes all”,- or harem-pattern. Sex will never be free, females will never mate just ad libitum (no pun).
Now as I already mentioned in a different commentary , I was hitherto stuck in a conflict between two contradicting evaluation systems: the instinctual preferences of the female, and “the most powerful man gets the woman”. To wit: the men who build and maintain a civilisation are militarily superior to savages, i.e. they are the most powerful men, and therefore deserve the women, versus, the females obviously crave the savage !!
(reason for that possibly being an instinct that selects for impulsiveness, aggressiveness, something primal-primitive; whereas the man in civilisation is systematically NOT that because he is required to have impulse control and higher mental functions).
So which evaluations method is the right one? Can the biological instinct of the female be wrong? Isn´t it a mistake to mess with nature and to arbitrarily try and override its wisdom?
But then I remembered a libertarian-inspired idea from a similar discussion: in the question of how to deal with coalburners, and generally with race-mixers, my suggestion is always (and as opposed to the usual White Nationalist “level” of “competence” that demands to exterminate them, smash their head in, carve swastikas into their skin etc.) :
the race-mixers have to live in the non-White country, they are not admitted in the White country
with the expected effect to have female race-mixing go to about zero: the female WILL make the decision for: stability, safety, culture, civilisation. An entirely free decision in favor of the boring civilized man, against the exciting savage. Nobody interferes with mother nature, rather, mother nature herself makes that decision by directing the females to this decision!
So: the libertarian-inspired approach of offering freedom of choice leads to: the prevalence of the White Man.
I.e.: the solution to the race-mixing problem is very easy, it is absolutely civil, and it is very effective. No need for revenge, no need for exterminatorial delusions. And the solution is based upon our best White traits: love of freedom.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to folks, what is needed is a renewal of White pride among women. Decline may well be right about women’s natural attractions, what he fails to consider is the role of cultural pride in overriding them. MGTOW views women as id and ego, no super-ego, with the obvious implication that we cannot be reasoned with or taught any sense of duty to race and nation, but must be controlled through shame and carrots/sticks.
I was about to answer that people should learn from experience, but thinking about it, it seems to me that your comment suggests something different: it seems to me that you´re saying that women do wish to be influenced, if not determined, by men….. just the way of that influencing is in question, you prefer reasoning rather than shaming.
For me, that´s a fundamental statement: it seems to say… and, if you want so, to confirm: that females in fact do not participate in the endeavor of truth-finding, on the path of empiricism, but that they wish to base their behavior on what men tell them!!! Wow!!!
I should not be surprised. A woman once explained to me that in her ideal world, the man is God, i.e. he is above God for the woman, i.e. he decides everything. So that a female´s sole desire is: to obey the man. But… frankly… I thought that women wish to participate in the explorations in the realm of ideas. Maybe that is really a fundamental misconception !!!?? Gotta digest that!
Of course, we should learn from experience. I think the natural/logical consequences model is quintessentially White, don’t you agree?
Of course, a large part of guiding others is helping them think through the consequences of their actions and learn from their mistakes, or better yet, someone else’s mistakes.
Here’s an article about it.
https://www.parents.com/parenting/better-parenting/positive/disciplining-with-natural-consequences/
Traditionally women are the ones who police other women’s behavior. Men are often inclined to go easy on “bad girls,” but other women can be positively ruthless.
Men also prefer to see their resources go to support their own biological children.
I once heard a women describe single mothers looking for husbands as in effect saying to men: “I had a party and didn’t invite you; would you be interested in paying the bill?”
This is not, of course, to criticize men who become conscientious stepfathers: only to point out that it is a burden not all men are happy to shoulder.
Thank you Mr. Devlin.
Since no one wants children to grow up without a father, would it not be wise to reintroduce the common law tort of seduction so that Fathers have recourse against young men who fail to do right by their daughters? I have been told that I have some sort of moral obligation to shame “thots.” I fail to see the justice in punitively humiliating one party to the transaction while the other party faces no consequences whatsoever.
I wouldn’t object to this as long as the resultant marriage contract were binding, i.e., no unilateral divorce. It has often been observed that the traditional treatment of male indiscretions as venial is not fair to women. The thinking behind the traditional system may simply be that it is both easier and more important to regulate female behavior. But that is not to deny the unfairness.
All improper sexual behavior on the part of females is the result of male collaboration in said activities. How anyone can think it’s more important to regulate female behavior while being more lenient on the boys or men escapes me. Y’all are supposed to be the stronger sex and us the weaker. At least, that is what I learned at home from my parents, especially my dad. (Yes, that’s true.) So, my interpretation is that men need to control themselves, and out of that self-control, women will automatically behave as they should. When women are being stupid, you have to look the other way, not give in.
“high investment parenting”
What about the argument that parenting doesn’t matter much?
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/taming-the-tiger-mom-and-tackling-the-parenting-myth/
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment