Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, & Female Hypergamy:
A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies” – Part 2
F. Roger Devlin
My Response Part Two: The Effect of Corrupt Status Hierarchies on Female Hypergamy
I could go on at much greater length denouncing the absurd, grotesque, surreal levels of corruption plaguing Western institutions of higher learning, but I bite my tongue to return to the point from which we set out, viz., Rob Henderson’s article “All the Single Ladies” and its touching portrayal of the loneliness of contemporary women who cannot find sufficiently educated men.
These sound like extraordinary ladies, and quite unlike any I ever knew or dated. Do they find men’s stock of knowledge and ideas insufficient to stimulate their own constantly buzzing intellects? Have male minds not been honed to enough razor sharpness to spot logical fallacies a mile off? Do the lady’s suitors have an insufficient appreciation of the fundamental principles upon which Western Civilization is based? Might an ability to parse Cicero help? How about solving differential equations, or explaining competing theories about why the industrial revolution occurred at the place and time it did? The poor fellows are certainly going to have to bone up before they can hope to become worthy of such exalted female minds!
Coming back down to earth, it is obvious Henderson is using the term “education” not in its proper sense—relating to the genuine practice of higher education—but with exclusive reference to contemporary institutions of “education.” And these are scandalously corrupt. The young women are “educated” only in the sense that they have demonstrated proficiency at negotiating a credentialing process that serves to protect a status hierarchy that has lost all mooring to the practice of higher education universities were originally meant to foster and promote. Those best able to rise within such a hierarchy turn out to be idle young women adept at chattering about olfactory oppression. (Competent women scholars obviously exist, but any survey of the contemporary academy would surely reveal that the remaining serious scholars are disproportionately male while the fakes are disproportionately female.)
Most of the noncollege young men these women despise—the 84 percent who are employed, in any case—do not engage in such chatter because they are too busy fixing leaks, delivering cargo on time, stringing electrical wire, repairing engines, hurrying to accident sites, putting out fires, preventing dusky barbarians from cutting our throats, bringing life-sustaining foods to market, and generally keeping the world around us running. They are operating competently toward the lower end of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as most men have had to do throughout history. And they are the only reason Western Civilization has not already collapsed entirely. The travesties of scholarship produced within the contemporary academy, by contrast, never benefit anyone apart from the mandarins who produce them. It is simply obvious that an electrician, carpenter, or auto mechanic is more valuable to the world than an olfactory racism “scholar.”
Why are women more successful than men at climbing today’s corrupt academic status ladder? In considerable part for the same reason they are better at knitting sweaters: they have a higher tolerance for monotonous, repetitive work of a sedentary kind. To spend his peak physical years culling examples of olfactory racism from the novels of Virginia Woolf and then—worse—to compose a long, formal dissertation on the subject would amount to positive torture for many young men, something I think does our sex credit. I myself had difficulty with restlessness in graduate school, which I dealt with through long walks and other physical exercise. I kept slogging away at the academic task because I was fascinated by big, serious, consequential philosophical ideas. But I could never have done the same for the sake of most of what gets “studied” in the contemporary academy.
Dutton mentions the probability that our newly minted olfactory racism scholarette has received public funding. Again, the particular case hardly matters—the point is that most young women in the academy benefit from such funding. This means working men have had a portion of their earnings confiscated to allow her to peruse Virgina Woolf novels and grind out empty verbiage about oppression. It is a crying injustice that should not be tolerated one minute longer. Yet in return for such support, the young lady looks down her snout at the men funding her! They are simply not “educated” enough to be worthy of her consideration.
What explains such women’s limitless faith in the objective validity of academic credentials? In part, their own mediocre intelligence and the limits precisely of their education in the authentic sense. Learning and acquired mental acuity are goods difficult to appreciate except by those who already have them in significant measure themselves. It is hard to judge uphill on education because people by definition cannot know what they do not know. Dull and untrained minds cannot have a proper sense of what they are lacking. All they can judge by is externalities—such as academic credentials. Any fool can see a degree hanging on someone’s wall in a way he cannot so easily see the benefit a gifted mind has derived from, for example, extended immersion in the Latin classics. Hence we find women in the tragicomic situation Henderson describes: lonely and miserable even as they reject legions of men on the basis of meaningless credentials. And we are asked to believe they do so because they value education. I feel myself crashing into the limits of the English language’s capacity for expressing contempt.
The relation of the genuine life of the mind to today’s corrupt academy might be illuminated by comparison with the ancient Christian doctrine of the church invisible. Christians believe the church derives from God himself, yet this presents an obvious problem. God is perfect, while the church is made up entirely of imperfect, sinful men (wise theologians admit that ecclesia semper reformanda – “the church is always in need of reform”). The explanation of this apparent paradox is found in the distinction between the church visible and the church invisible. Normally when men refer to the church, they have the everyday, visible church in mind. But this human institution is less important than the true, invisible church responsible for the work of salvation, and whose composition is known to God alone. The invisible church somehow exists within the visible, but is never identical to it. Obviously, the decay of genuine learning within a corrupt academy is analogous to a near-throttling of the invisible church by the visible.
If you give an uneducated (in the proper sense) person an educational credential, he—or more to the point, she—will accept it unquestioningly as a proof of her own real accomplishment. Dutton reports that the young olfactory racism expert weathered the storm of public scorn directed at her successfully. He even quotes her as saying, “I’m fine, I’m quite pleased that I’ve upset these basement-dwelling incels.” It does not occur to her that the incels may only be incels because thousands of academic spinsters like herself are ludicrously deluded as to the value of their own attainments.
In short, the corruption of our educational institutions has produced a status-mirage that women are unable to see through, one which condemns both themselves and men to childlessness—though not necessarily depriving the women of polygynous sex with men above them in the outward status hierarchy.
In addition to the mediocrity of their minds and the modesty of their attainments, women in the academy may have difficulty seeing through the corrupt status hierarchies in which they are enmeshed simply because they are women. As I wrote in a recent essay, the sex generally consists of “impressionable conformists with a powerful need for social approval.” Status hierarchies are produced by men, as Napoleon knew (“Les femmes n’ont pas de rang”). Women rarely consider them critically; they accept them as given, and all their instincts concerning the “attractiveness” of men operate downstream from there. If a society is healthy, its status hierarchy embodies sound values, and female hypergamy functions as a spur to worthwhile male achievement. If a society is sick—we get what we see in Henderson’s article.
A Valuable Historical and Literary Parallel
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote a wonderful story reflecting how an impressionable female mind functions within a different sick society marked by an equally distorted educational status hierarchy: early Soviet Russia. It is called Nastenka, and can be found in English translation in the collection Apricot Jam (the relevant narrative begins on p. 91). The story presents numerous suggestive analogies with the decadence and corruption of the contemporary West as described in this essay. Let us have a look.
Just before the revolution, Nastenka enrolls in “a classical high school, one of the best in Moscow.” It survives unchanged well into the 1920s because at that period the Bolsheviks have more pressing matters than educational policy to worry about. The young heroine becomes fascinated with the imaginative literature of the nineteenth century. “It was an entire, enormous, organic world, more vivid than the reality that flowed around her.” At first, she simply enjoys the direct experience of reading, but gradually her teacher, a cultivated lady who received her education under the old regime, reveals to her the possibility of going deeper:
She learned to look at books in a new way—not just to live with the characters, but to live constantly with the author. How did he regard his characters? Was he the sole master of their lives, or where they independent of them? How did he organize this scene or that, and what words and phrases did he use in doing so?
Gradually Nastenka conceives the ambition of sharing her love of literature with the rising generation by becoming a teacher.
At age sixteen, one year before graduation, her family moves and she is thrust into an unfamiliar environment. At her new school “she couldn’t recognize the literature of the past in what was now being laid out before her in lectures.”
Though they did acknowledge, in passing, the musicality of Pushkin’s poetry (but never mentioned the transparent clarity of his perception of the world), they insistently pointed out that he expressed the mindset and ideology of the mid-level landowners during the incipient crisis of Russian feudalism. [The playwright] Ostrovsky reflected the decay of the feudal, serf-owning system and its displacement by developing industrial capitalism.
Nastenka pores over the new Soviet literature textbook produced by some communist ideologue named Kogan, where she learns how “all these Onegins and Bolkonskys” (characters in Pushkin and Tolstoy respectively) are our class enemies. She quietly thinks: “That may be so, yet they certainly knew how to love in those days!” But she cannot bring herself to question the overall validity of what she is being taught: “There was no way to maintain a sustained argument against Kogan. He couldn’t have constructed all these many things on utter nonsense. Surely there was a genuine historical and social basis for them? . . . Surely they weren’t built on thin air?” She begins to feel a mixture of confusion and boredom that contrasts sharply with the enthusiasm for literature that initially inspired her choice of career.
Her boredom vanishes temporarily when she meets a charismatic young man named Shurik, overflowing with ideas that he expresses with extreme confidence. As we all know, women love confident men: “How did Shurik know all these things? When had he found the time to soak it all up?” The reader quickly perceives—although Nastenka herself never does—the reason for Shurik’s self-assurance. He is a communist militant who follows the party line unswervingly. He knows exactly what he is supposed to say about everything under the sun. Nastenka drinks up his every word, and a romance begins. But soon he is pressing her to consummate the relationship, and something inside her tells her that, at the very least, it is not yet time. Concerning early Soviet manhood in general, she reflects: “None of them could understand the slow, gradual development of feelings.”
So Shurik breaks off with her and demonstratively ignores her for the rest of the time they are in class together. Soon he is called to Moscow and a no doubt successful rise within the official status hierarchy of the Soviet literary world. Nastenka is left broken-hearted. The reader understands—as she herself does not—that she has barely avoided a spiritual landmine.
Time passes and Nastenka, now addressed at Anastasia Dmitrievna, is put in charge of a class: “At long last, her dream had come true [and] she could pour into [her students’] heads all the things she had preserved from this great and good literature” (as well as “make sure these little boys become decent men, not like the ones today”).
One day she is handed a new literature textbook meant to guide her own teaching. In it a major Soviet author is quoted as stating: “It is entirely natural that workers’ and peasants’ power is crushing its enemies like lice.” She wonders, “How could you possibly present that to the children?” Yet this writer is “a Russian classic, and an authority respected across the globe, so how could your wretched little mind challenge him?”
By this time the Soviet curriculum is tightly controlled. She makes the best of things, teaching “all these production and Five-Year Plan works with the same dedication that she felt to her own sacred cause of literature.” On her own time, however, she organizes an after-school literary circle for a dozen or so of her best students where she “takes them through the best of the nineteenth century, things that weren’t included on the syllabus.” But word gets out and she is ordered to stop. “Enough harping on the classics! It distracts the students from life.”
Nastenka’s fate is the tragedy of a promising young female mind stunted due to an inability to trust its own healthy instincts and question what it receives from a corrupt authority. She senses the gulf separating the great literature she learned to love in her youth from the Marxist rubbish she is forced to impart, but never breaks through to clear insight about her situation. Perhaps most fascinatingly, she dimly perceives that this cultural decline bears some relation to the contrast between the men of her own time who insist on getting straight down to business with women and the Onegins and Bolkonskys who “certainly knew how to love in those days.”
So in general, as I said, women accept the authorities and status hierarchies that they find in place. This is probably because authority and status are essentially male concerns. Les femmes n’ont pas de rang—women are never going to tear down corrupt hierarchies for us, nor is it reasonable for men to blame them for being as nature made them. Their sexual instincts will function properly again once we have replaced rotten hierarchies with sound ones in better accord with the nature of things and a proper sense of values. When we do, we shall never again have female olfactory racism scholarettes turning up their noses at hardworking men.
What, Then, Must We Do?
Some years ago I came across an amusing article about a fire breaking out in an office building. What was amusing was the reaction of the female employees. Firemen, as everyone knows, do not enjoy the very highest status within our society, despite the dangerous and life-saving nature of their work. But every dog has its day, and even firemen come into their own when a fire breaks out. Under such circumstances, there is no time for discussion or persuasion. Everyone who knows what’s good for him must do exactly as the firemen direct, including the corporate CEO. You do not give firemen any backtalk while a fire is raging. For a brief moment, they are at the top of the status hierarchy.
Well, these corporate “career girls” were practically swooning. Once out of the building and in safety, they began marveling to one another how manly those guys were. This was virility the likes of which they had never known. It was the first time in their whole lonely, miserable lives that any man had put them in their place, and they were simply beside themselves. It was better than Love’s Sweet Fury.
It would be interesting to know whether any of these women went on the internet afterwards to seek dates with firemen. I doubt it. Most firemen are not terribly “educated,” and often earn less than the ass-sitting female paper-pushers they rescue. Perhaps if women had to spend several post-pubertal years being continually rescued from burning buildings, we could foster a baby-boom. Instead, of course, America’s fire departments are busy replacing firemen with firewomen. (When a large part of Los Angeles recently burned down, it emerged that the three persons in charge of the fire department were all lesbians.) So those rescued women probably went back to their sterile lives as soon as the building reopened. What a pity.
So what can we do? It is tempting to say we must raise the status of young men. But the solution to the problem described in Henderson’s article is surely not for policemen, farmers, and plumbers to get post-doctoral fellowships in feminist theory. If we cannot make female hypergamy function correctly once again by raising the status of men, all that remains is . . . to lower that of women. In effect, this is what briefly occurred in that burning office building. And the women just loved it.
Feminists, like broken clocks giving the right time twice a day, have described how women under “patriarchy” eroticize and derive pleasure from their own oppression, meaning their exclusion from the male status hierarchy. They are correct. The reader who wishes to observe how women might be made happier once men finally work up the gumption to deprive them of status is advised to watch my favorite Italian movie, Swept Away (1974; avoid Madonna’s 2002 remake). It was made by a woman—and could only have been made by a woman. Meanwhile, clueless male traditionalists offer nothing but laments that women are no longer being placed upon sufficiently high pedestals, unaware that their excessively elevated status is now the principal factor in their loneliness and sexual frustration. Watch the movie!
Sex is not simply something that happens in people’s bedrooms. It structures the whole of society. Societies that are badly out of order sexually, as ours is, can expect to experience sexual dysfunction and a potentially catastrophic decline in fertility. Women need men’s love, but to get it they need to respect men. (For men to respect women is also nice, but not as essential—although discussed ad nauseam.) Women have traded love for status, a properly male concern, and they are deeply unhappy. This is because they are not getting the love they need, neither from the men above them in the status hierarchy who can go from hookup to hookup nor, even more obviously, from the lower-status men their inborn instincts virtually compel them to reject. And it does not matter that these men are not actually unworthy of them. For women, all that matters is the outward status hierarchy.
Another point to consider: Henderson asks only how the ladies might find worthy men, not how men might find worthy wives. But what would the average academic spinster really have to offer a man who must go out every day and accomplish challenging tasks in the real world? She probably cannot cook, since grad students live on frozen entrees and takeout. Can she clean, decorate, grow a vegetable garden, or do anything else that might make his home a comforting and pleasant place? Assembling snippets from Virginia Woolf just doesn’t cut it.
So far I have spoken only of the 84 percent of non-college men who are employed. Henderson himself passes rapidly over this larger group to discuss the 16 percent who are stuck playing video games and watching pornography. Obviously, their long-term happiness and self-respect as well as the good of society demands that some useful work be found for them to perform. Fortunately, there is always valuable work to be done in this world; it is just a matter of suiting the tasks to the men. But this is a complex economic problem I have no special qualifications for addressing. One thing I would not recommend most of these young men do is enroll in college, where they can expect to be demeaned and resented. Leave the campuses to the purple-haired women’s studies majors who organize slut marches.
Proper employment will take care of most of the video game addiction from which these young men suffer. There remains the question of pornography. Being by temperament more analyst than moralist, I have been reluctant to address this question. Moreover, I long assumed that even a fairly mediocre woman could be counted upon to win out over lifeless images in the heart of any normal young man. I am no longer so sure.
Let us look at just a few of the advantages pornography enjoys from the point of view of Henderson’s unemployed and underemployed young men:
- Pornography cannot divorce them and clean out their bank accounts with the armed backing of the state.
- While porn cannot give them children, it also cannot take their children away from them. Pornography has never denounced any man to Child Protective Services as an abuser.
- Pornography does not despise any man for having failed to earn an academic credential in oppression studies, does not call his masculinity “toxic,” does not condemn him for the natural sexual urges he cannot help: in sum, does not indulge in the endless litany of complaints about men heard from contemporary women.
- Porn is cheap. Wives cost a lot of money, especially when they are carrying and nursing babies, whereas making porn requires only a camera and a slut. Not being a capital-intensive industry, the end user can find a nearly limitless ocean of it online for free.
- Perhaps not least important, you do not actually have to pay attention to pornography. If forced to choose between keeping either porn or a pretentious female racism “scholar” under my roof, I would unhesitatingly choose the porn since I could always stuff it in a drawer and ignore it—something that cannot be done with a woman.
I can only conclude that these young men are behaving rationally in preferring pornography to the available women. If I were God or possessed a magic wand, I would (after finding them gainful employment) provide these men with sweet, loving, grateful young wives capable of creating homes for them and bearing and rearing decent children. But I am not hiding any stash of such women from anyone. I really do not know where they are to be found. If someone were able to solve this problem, I suspect the plague of pornography would largely take care of itself. Any eventual legislation to outlaw it would provide no more than the coup de grace.
Decadence%2C%20the%20Corruption%20of%20Status%20Hierarchies%2C%20andamp%3B%20Female%20Hypergamy%3A%0AA%20Response%20to%20Rob%20Henderson%E2%80%99s%20Article%20%E2%80%9CAll%20the%20Single%20Ladies%E2%80%9D%20and%238211%3B%20Part%202%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, and Female Hypergamy: A Response to Rob Henderson’s Article “All the Single Ladies”
-
Men Only Want One Thing And It’s Disgusting
-
Not Hooking Up
-
Hooking Up
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 619
-
The Women’s Resistance
-
Rediscovering a Politics of Limits
-
Robespierre: Embodiment of the French Revolution
30 comments
I think you hit the nail on the head when you state that these highly educated women are looking for status, above all else.
Money and educational attainment themselves are not what excites women, but the mark of approval from others.
Women want what other people want. This is the cruel nature of human sexuality: those most in need of love are least likely to receive it. Lonely-hearted men are doubly unnattractive to women because they suffer from a lack of prior endorsement.
That is true regardless of their actual value (ie. “what’s inside” doesn’t actually count). No amount of money or book learning will change that, at least not in the West where women have been freed entirely from existential financial pressures.
There is no amount of status that they are really satisfied with though. Once they obtain a high-status man, he becomes the new baseline and consequently loses the glow of high status. Then the female lizard brain begins seeking an even higher status man.
The intersection of female hypergamy and mass electronic media is a truly devastating force. It convinces them that there is always an even better man just around the corner that they should be focusing on.
What the typical young Western woman is looking for now is not just a high-status man, but an amalgamation of many different types of high-status men. One man may be extremely good looking, but maybe he is in a low-class service job. Another man might have lots of money, but is out of shape. They combine different traits of different men until they think they should have a man with Clark Kent good looks, an 8 figure net worth, a high status career, has a great family, volunteers for the correct causes, and an assortment of other traits. They are literally looking for a mythological figure.
Also I forgot to mention, they never consider the options that this theoretical man may have. He is supposed to have achieved the pinnacle of human status while also being wholly dedicated to her for some unexplainable reason. Indeed it’s almost as though his entire existence has been conjured up by her imagination!
Incels have conceptualized this pattern of female thinking and have given a name to this mythological figure they seek – “the alpha simp.”
Oh yes, some women have a long list of traits they expect in a man, every item on which excludes a large majority from considerations. It’s as if they think a husband were a custom-made product.
This dynamic has reached absurd heights in online dating. I am average or a bit above and “educated” at a major university, six figures a year, traveled the world, not tall but not bad looking. Still, the rejection rate was so high I stopped assessing each profile before deciding whether to swipe left or right and just started mindlessly swiping right on every one. I didn’t even look at my phone while I did it. Then when I’d get responses I could prune my options from there. This remained the dynamic even after I’d left the big city for a smaller, more conservative one.
Yea, I know there are better sites than Tinder. I ended up finding my wife on one of those. But it’s still a slog and I wanted to share that anecdote because it’s still the reality of most men out there.
Watching Swept Away, great recommendation. I see it was one of the inspirations for the recent Ostlund film, Triangle of Sadness.
My experience with Western women is very different. There are some among them who dump men to get more of what they want, for example a bigger apartment in which to crash in. But mostly women that I have encountered are quite committed once they have made their pick. Women are into long term relationships. It is the men who fuck around and keep looking for better and better women.
Do you think you are near the top of the attractiveness hierarchy? If you or your male contemporaries are, this might explain your experience with women.
A woman won’t usually give herself to a man whose child she can’t imagine bearing. Why would she?
That’s correct. Women are always looking at the long term, even if they say they aren’t.
Men have to be the type that women want to have kids with, which requires more than having a better job than she does.
I am closer to the Averige Joe. Overall I haven´t witnessed the kind of predatory female behaviour that was described. Women can be very picky but once they have made their pick they tend to be committed. That is my observation…
We must always remember that our personal experiences often form a small and unrepresentative sample of the phenomenon in question. Thus, they do not disprove the general thesis. But it does bring up an interesting point that there might be contexts in which the female behavior differs from the general trend. These could offer valuable lessons and insights.
In the seventies and early eighties there were still TV shows depicting functional, average ( really well above average but attainable) families: The Waltons, The Brady Bunch, Eight is Enough . Motherhood was depicted as a serious and worthwhile occupation, as rewarding as, if not more so than, being a man.
Tom Braden, “ex”-CIA, of Crossfire (with Pat Buchanan) fame wrote the semi-autobiographical book on which Eight is Enough was based.
Ciao, Professore (per Wertmuller)… Approaching these issues quickly becomes a minefield. It should probably start with education on the issues and numbers. By and large men and women are paid pretty close to the same for the same job. However a wage gap exists in large part because women choose careers that pay less than ones chosen by men. Even government bloggers notably leave out the part about comparing salary for the same job. Veterinary techs, floral designers, art careers and social workers are paid less than tons of blue collar jobs. Few women list “accountant” as the job of their dream guy, but they are apparently paid pretty well and have good hours.
While women now outnumber men in college, there still exists affirmative action for women in any number of jobs. The Misogyny Myth is an efficient survey of how this phenomenon is portrayed. There is a great summary of how male Uber drivers outearn women by working more hours and driving 2% faster… outearning them even though the women get higher tips.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-misogyny-myth
Dr. Stephen Baskerville: “In a matriarchy the women despise the men. In a patriarchy the women admire the men.”
More from Baskerville;
Stephen Baskerville, a political scientist at Howard University, argues that no-fault divorce rewards wrongdoers, reduces the need of marital binding agreement contracts at the public’s expense, and helps women take custody of their children at the husbands’ expense, in many cases where the man has done nothing wrong. He also adds that a ban on divorce (alone) will not work, because people will separate themselves and be in a permanent state of adultery, or they will create a hostile home environment for the children. (Should then marriage be banned with all its legal implications?)
(In other words, it seems that there is a growing immature majority in the adult population that cannot resolve their matrimonial problems privately anymore. Perhaps they should be prepared to be judged independently for potential “fault” as opposed to “No Fault” and suffer the consequences without judicial or political immunity)
A television interview with a professor of politics [Baskerville] and rights advocate:
INTERVIEWER: One of the programs that Al Gore has embraced is tougher federal enforcement for “Deadbeat Dads” – fathers who fail to pay child support. Fifty percent of American kids presently live apart from their fathers. Joining us now from Washington is a Professor and spokesman for Men, Fathers and Children International. The Professor has a different take on so-called “Deadbeat Dads”. And what take is that, Professor?
PROFESSOR: Well, what most people don’t realize is that we have in this country are government officials who forcibly tear fathers away from their children with no grounds of legal wrong-doing, either proven or alleged. We’ve created in this country a very dangerous and destructive machine. It consists of judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, bureaucratic police, and many others who all have a vested interest in one thing. And that’s ripping away as many fathers from their children as they can.
INTERVIEWER: Why is that happening?
PROFESSOR: There are basic conflicts of interest in the whole child-custody, child-support system. (Charles) Dickens said that the principle of the law is to make business for itself, and family court judges have learned that the more children they take away from their parents, the more business there is for their courts and for those who are the recipients of their patronage. They sit at the top of a very large patronage network. And they can dole out a father’s income and many other goodies to an assortment, an entourage, of judicial courtiers who also profit from having children taken away from their parents.
INTERVIEWER: Wow, that’s a really conspiratorial thesis you have. You know … I know a lot of family court judges and I …I … just couldn’t believe they would think that way. I do know there’s a bias to giving the children to their mother in this society, I don’t think there’s any question about that … that a judge, all things being equal are (sic) going to award primary custody to the mom. Is that a wrong thing?
PROFESSOR: Well, what most people don’t realize is that there’s a much more serious matter here. And that is that it is not just a mutual divorce in most cases. Eighty percent of the divorces in this country are unilateral. And when fathers are involved, most of the divorces are filed by mothers when children are involved. In other words, a father who’s done nothing wrong can be hauled into divorce court and deprived of his children, his income, his savings, his home, his inheritance … he can lose everything he has and he doesn’t have to have done anything wrong, and he doesn’t have to have agreed to a divorce.
INTERVIEWER: How many states have “no-fault” divorces now?
PROFESSOR: I believe all of them do. The laws changes …vary somewhat…
INTERVIEWER: In every state now? You’re right, it is a frightening scenario, there’s no question about it. I have to be honest and say it’s heartbreaking for the children across the country ’cause there’s so much acrimony between men and women. But even if that’s true, and I don’t know very many fathers, responsible fathers, who are shut out completely from their children. Usually they have, you know … co .. uh custody, joint custody, or, and a lot of visitation. But even if the guy gets hosed in court, shouldn’t he still pay for his child?
PROFESSOR: This appeals to common sense, but when you think about it, it’s a very dangerous principle. You’re talking about the government seizing control of the children of citizens who have done nothing wrong. This is the most dangerous power any government can have, to control and regulate the private lives of its citizens, including their families and their children.
INTERVIEWER: But decisions have to be made in a divorce action. And the only one who can make them is a court … which is supposed to be impartial.
PROFESSOR: And a court can make a decision that if it has no jurisdiction in a case and then the State should not be involving itself. The State involves itself when someone has done something legally wrong, either civilly or criminally.
INTERVIEWER: But then how would you resolve any custody matters if the two parent’s wanta live apart? How would you resolve that?
PROFESSOR: If the two parents want to live apart that’s one thing, but in eighty percent of the divorces in this country, one parent does not want to live apart.
INTERVIEWER: Yah, but you can’t keep … if one spouse wants out, you can’t keep that person in there. So you’re saying that the spouse who wants out … wants out should walk away from the kids too?
PROFESSOR: This is the only constitutionally and morally acceptable principle we can accept. Otherwise, we’re talking about government seizing control of children, and property, and persons (without cause). This is the kind of police state the Divorce Industry (emphasis added) is creating in this country. (Interviwer attempts to talk over – “Allright, let me stop you then” – Professor continues: First they take your children, then they take your property, and then they take you.
INTERVIEWER: Very provocative, your thesis is … the person who wants out of the marriage should then walk away from the children as well.
PROFESSOR: St. Augustine said that without justice, States are nothing but great robberies, and this is exactly what we are seeing in divorce courts. If States have the power, if government has the power to seize control of children, and micromanage the private lives of citizens who have done nothing wrong, there is no stopping the State.
INTERVIEWER: OK, Professor, very, very provocative. Thank you very much.
(Reflection, Guzziferno)
I haven’t heard of anyone besides Dr. Baskerville, Roger Devlin, and Dr. Daniel Amneus who have gone as far as they have in exposing the family-, man-, and child-wrecking divorce industry. Baskerville has cited this site several times for Devlin’s articles.
Read: “Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers,” The New Politics of Sex, Taken into Custody, The Case for Father Custody, The Garbage Generation.
https://counter-currents.com/2011/06/rotating-polyandry-and-its-enforcers-part-1/
https://counter-currents.com/2011/06/rotating-polyandry-and-its-enforcers-part-2/
Many believe ex-Senator Nancy Schaeffer of Georgia was murdered for trying to expose a Nationwide States Industry involving Child custody which ended the planned airing of her documentary regarding the subject called “The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services, 2010”. This generates enormous sums of money to state banks, agencies, programs, groups, etc. Also, Dr. Leon Koziol –“Satan’s Docket”, led a march in D.C. which involved meeting with most Senate and House representatives in 2018 circa.
Your effort in transcribing that interview is greatly appreciated, as it certainly shines a stark dose of daylight on the open and blatant discrimination in the judicial system against fathers. In my younger days, I knew men (one of whom was my own brother) who were financially and emotionally ruined by a divorce that seemed to come from out of nowhere. It struck me as profoundly unfair and unjust — un-American even, when I still believed in that concept. Often, the former wife would soon remarry; and there the (divorced) father would be: still paying child support, usually living in near-poverty, while his children was living with another man!! And the all-too-frequent occurrence of the predatorily empowered ex-wives, sniffing out any pay-increase of her ex-husband’s wages of even the most minimal amount, dragging him back into court (at HIS expense!) to increase her weekly take. A sick, SICK system! I have to give men this point 100%: If women are to be taken as “equal” in rights, why are they never held accountable as “equal” in personal responsibility? The simple answer, of course, is that we are simply not as capable, much less equal, to men.
Such a variety of topics to comment on within this one piece!
I went to college for the purpose of making my dad happy. (I had asked him why attending college was important when I did not know exactly what I wanted to do in life. He responded that it was important so that I’d be able to get a job that required a college degree.)
I always thought college was a waste of time, since what interested me the most was philosophy, which I could read on my own. During my 4 years taking college classes to earn my bachelor’s, while working full time, I gave much thought as to what a degree even meant. I concluded that earning a degree proves nothing more than you’re “trainable”. (I’d witnessed much affirmative action + academic cheating occurring while attending college.)
In my senior year of high school, I met my now husband while I was walking to the library. The day I met him, he announced to me, after having mulled things over, he had decided he wanted to be a married man & have a big family. Back in 1988, I wasn’t so certain that this world was a place that I should bring children into. I allowed him to convince me to marry him. It was a good decision. He used to make me laugh & he knew how to fix the nonstop electrical problems on my ’87 Dodge Charger. He had worked on & off as a messenger, (deliveries via bike & later motorcycle), loved physics, & computers.
*Because* I enrolled in college, he decided to complete a bachelor’s in computer science. Interestingly, in spite of having a non-feminist mom, all 3 of my sons now want very studious, educated girls. (Sigh, I keep trying to introduce them to Amish baby-making farmer’s daughters, but nope…) I even suspect one of my kids is wanting to go to med school because the girl he’s so fond of wants to be a dentist.
In reply to Devlin’s interest: “It would be interesting to know whether any of these women went on the internet afterwards to seek dates with firemen.” The answer is yes. Also, many of the volunteer firemen I used to work with married gals they met in a fire, or were introduced by these gals to their girlfriends.
and its touching portrayal of the loneliness of contemporary women who cannot find sufficiently educated men.
Pffft! They will be lucky to find any kind of white man, educated or not. There are far more female babies and children to be found just about anywhere you look. Even a dozen years ago, scientists (on a television documentary) were noticing that men were losing their ability to produce male children. I think they had white people in mind here. And apparently male newborns are more frail and likely to die, so maybe that skews things, I don’t know.
I thought it was just in my town but my penpal in an eastern state says it’s the same thing over there. Also, it is hard to find statistics which break down the ratio of M to F in recent births according to race (in the US). I just wanted to point out what I see under my own nose – little girls everywhere, even with celebrities. Two daughters, sometimes three – and then the couple quits. I am talking about white people here, not blacks and Asians, who at first glance seem to be having more males than us.
PS. My husband has been able to produce male children.
Unwin’s Sex and Culture (1935) is a must read regarding this subject. This British anthropologist studied over 80 cultures and civilizations and found a repeatable pattern over and over again. As soon as no pre marital sex for women was no longer a condition for marriage, the civilization inevitably collapsed within three generations to the lowest level possible. The was written before the sexual revolution of the 60’s. It’s all happening exactly as his work predicts, even though he didn’t set out to predict the future of western civilization written in 1935.
I haven’t read the book, although I’ve seen it referenced many times but are you sure the author wasn’t writing as a warning? It was published shortly after Brave New World (1932), in which sex and reproduction have been completely decoupled. Real world sexual morality was already gradually loosening with liberal culture.
I don’t think so. It was more a general warning. What makes the book so powerful is that it’s not a polemic against modern society, it simply presents the data. Unwin does offer his personal opinions, but separates it from the thesis. If anything, he was a proto feminist. He noted all the successful societies were a patriarchy, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a requirement, although I think he admits there is no evidence an alternative model has worked. What he suggests is a rationalist society, where women have equal rights. The problem there is that is assumes women are as rational as men, which is wishful thinking. Women barely have the capacity for rational self awareness and only then with the enormous help of a man, they don’t seem to be able to reach that level by themselves, most never approach it at all. Sad, but apparently true. They should still be held accountable.
One drawback to the work is that he equates the loss of pre marital chastity to both man and women as the problem, although he admits it’s catastrophic when the loss is with women. I think he’s trying to sound fair, but in fact it only really does apply to women. There have been advanced civilizations where the men could freely have sex with multiple woman if they could afford it, such as ancient China, where concubines and prostitutes were available. He does argue that the most advanced western societies had monogamy for both sides as the norm for the average person.
So total sexual freedom, female promiscuity really, inevitably destroys the civilization within three generations, ends up usually conquered. Rational thinking, a belief in a higher power and absolute monogamy, lifelong marriage, go out the window and the critical factor is the removal of the condition of pre marital chastity as the norm for marriage. Conversely, any rationalistic scientific society that can maintain this sexual restraint and recognizes some divine concept or higher power, will surpass all other types of civilizations within three generations. For a brief period western civilization maintained all three. Only the first generation embracing total sexual freedom can get a away it, which gives the deceptive impression that we are now modern and this works. The third generation hits the lowest point. As for today, I think we should reintroduce concubinage as another option, because modern women aren’t worthy of the status of a wife. This way they can have the some alpha man’s kids and still have some rights, but nowhere near that of a wife.
Very interesting but a hard sell to an already emancipated womanhood. A resort to the Germanic tradition of monogamous marriage for life, which presumably inspired the Christian rule, seems much more palatable. This would not be so hard to promote to modern women, as always assuming that we held a good share of the organs of propaganda. Many already hold this as a lost ideal.
“As for today, I think we should reintroduce concubinage as another option, because modern women aren’t worthy of the status of a wife.”
You make some interesting observations in main, but the above statement is profoundly contemptuous of your White female counterparts, and is (more importantly) out of touch with reality.
In addition;
“Perhaps Middle Eastern Societies fear “our type” of society as a dangerous immoral threat that is being imposed on them, even more than the economic and violent military takeover of their society that we present. Perhaps their perception of a loose and complex society of laws and rules which produces its own type of casualties here in America is more frightening in the long term than the human rights issues, which we feel, they violate and for which we are demanding change. Perhaps the credibility of our issues is also in question when we do not insist to diplomatically impose them on all nations, but forcefully on those of our selective choosing, those rich in natural resources we seek. (from the Book “Reflection” by Guzziferno)
Equality of rights for men and women is an absurdity. Goes against the natural law.
For every reason, Capital needs to be controlled.
Most plumbers, truck drivers, electricians, mechanics, paramedics, firefighters, policemen and professional soldiers I know are married.
What on earth is this article about.
It’s also true that women improve their social status through the men they associate with, but not the other way around. Jacqueline Bouvier rose in the social hierarchy by marrying John F. Kennedy and then Aristotle Onassis. Whereas Denis Thatcher’s marriage to Margeret Roberts had a different outcome; she became the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and one of the most famous, while he remained an obscure and barely noticed individual.
If you have a Subscriber 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.