I have noticed that a lot of writing about sex—not all, but a lot—is marked by a strange lacuna: it fails to mention that some people are simply born more attractive than others. Thick textbooks promising comprehensive coverage of “human sexuality” are capable of leaving out this little detail. Such reticence may be due to embarrassment. We all understand that natural attractiveness and unattractiveness are unearned; furthermore, these differences provide occasions for envy, disappointment, and conflict. It is understandable that some writers prefer to pass over such uncomfortable matters in silence. I have no objection to this, but such writers should probably also refrain from pontificating about the sexual revolution, for it is almost impossible to say anything useful about this massive social phenomenon without facing up to such unpleasant realities.
There used to be a website called HotOrNot.com to which the public was invited to upload pictures of men and women. Viewers were then invited to rate the subjects’ level of sexual attractiveness on a one-to-five scale. I once saw the site recommended to men as a useful objective way of gauging their relative value on the dating market, or of experimenting with different styles and fashions.
Several years ago, I published a review essay on a couple of books by a nice lady named Wendy Shalit, who advocates more modest behavior on the part of young women. Some time later, I learned that she had discovered the existence of HotOrNot.com. She was simply horrified. By her own account, she spent a sizeable chunk of her own time running through the profile pictures to give them all the maximum possible attractiveness rating. As I said, she is a nice lady: she did not like the thought of anyone getting their feelings hurt. But I must question how much good her altruistic action was able to accomplish. Being dishonestly told they are beautiful or handsome does nothing to increase anybody’s objective attractiveness. Most men and women eventually have to face the fact that they are not all that glamorous, if only to avoid making fools of themselves. Attempting to sweep unpleasant realities under the rug and insisting on being nice all the time can eventually come back to bite you.
When the subject of natural difference in attractiveness is publicly broached, however, it usually takes the form of berating one of the two sexes in particular for preferring beauty to ugliness. Does anybody care to guess which sex comes in for most of this criticism? Never fear, I will keep the reader in suspense no longer: many women are not exactly shy about expressing their displeasure at men’s irrational preference for youth and beauty. Some speak as if all the men had gotten together one day and collectively decided to ignore all the deserving Plain Janes and mature ladies out there simply to be mean.
It ought to be obvious that men’s preferences are the natural and inborn result of many thousands of years of evolution. In the words of sex researcher David Buss: “Telling men not to become aroused by signs of youth and health is like telling them not to experience sugar as sweet.” Moreover, while admittedly unfair to individuals, these preferences serve an evolutionary purpose: attraction to youth results in the birth of more children, while attraction to beauty tends to result in those children being genetically healthier. It is not a male conspiracy to hurt the Plain Janes.
Now I want to raise a subject less discussed than men’s cruel preference for youth and beauty. This is, of course, that the very same differential in sexual attractiveness exists among men—or, if you prefer, in women’s perceptions of men. It does not alter this fact that a woman’s priorities (e.g., for height, social status, resource acquisition ability) are different from a man’s: the differential in attractiveness is just as great.
In fact, men as a group seem to have it worse. A study performed by the OKCupid dating site a couple of years ago asked men and women to rate pictures in the same manner as on the aforementioned HotOrNot.com site, but without using any scale: simply making a binary choice as to whether the subjects were of above or below average attractiveness. Men classified about half the women as being of below average attractiveness. That may not have been as kind as Wendy Shalit’s method of proceeding, but at least it concurs with the dictionary definition of the word “average.” Women, on the other hand, rated eighty percent of the men as below average.
As with many social research findings, this sex difference will not surprise anyone with broad experience of the world. It was enshrined long ago in the old saw that “a woman is more particular.” The average woman perceives fewer sexually attractive men than the average man perceives sexually attractive women. It follows that a woman is more likely than a man, not less, to dismiss a potential mate right out of the starting gate simply for being insufficiently attractive. No doubt this is not the ladies’ fault, but has some evolutionary cause, as all sex differences do. It does, however, suggest that the world could do without quite so much female complaining about the cruelty and unfairness of men.
In short: the greater readiness of women to complain about the realities of the dating market is not evidence that conditions there are harsher for women than for men; it is evidence that women are more disposed to complain. This is, indeed, one of the most conspicuous differences between the sexes, and as always, there are reasons for it. A woman who complains often receives sympathy and help. A man who complains makes himself appear weak. In particular, any man who went about complaining of the failure of women to be attracted to him would quickly become the laughing stock of his entire tribe. So men learn to avoid complaining.
Yet I have seen commentators on the sexual revolution seriously point to the near-universality of female lamentations about the college hookup scene, for example, and the relative lack of any male counterpart as evidence that the campuses are a sexual heaven for men and a sexual hell for women: all the guys are scoring with hot chicks right and left, while the poor girls are getting their innocent hearts broken. Could anyone be such an idiot as to take this situation at face value? Yes, they could, and plenty of them write for the conservative press.
Now let me explain what I believe is actually going on. I have frequently made the point in my writings that the normal law of nature is that women constitute the supply side of sex and men the demand side, a fact grounded in the biological reality that men are constantly producing bazillions of sperm while a woman’s body releases only about four hundred fertilizable eggs over her lifetime. So the usual rule of nature is that males display while females choose. But this pattern does not hold absolutely and 100% of the time. Specifically, at the very high end of the male attractiveness spectrum there are a handful of fellows so dashing, so tall, dark, and handsome, so successful, popular, and charismatic, that plenty of women would be willing to choose them. In effect, they get to make their own choice from among their choosers. They are more pursued than pursuing.
Back in the 1970s when Robert Redford was in his prime, I remember reading about certain practical measures which proved necessary wherever he was working on a movie. A sign was posted at the entrance to the film set informing the numerous women who showed up unannounced that the movie production company was not operating a dating service for Mister Redford. They were trying to make a movie, and would the ladies please just go away? This may sound unkind, but it was not motivated by any malicious desire to disappoint Redford’s female admirers. It was simply a practical necessity: there were too many of them, and not enough of him.
Redford came along at just about the height of the sexual revolution, of course. There have always been a small handful of outstandingly attractive men along with a vastly larger crowd of the fair-to-middling sort. Less sexually “liberated” eras had a way of dealing with this unpleasant and awkward fact. Then as now, young women would occasionally catch a glimpse of some especially dashing beau who set their hearts aflutter. Most of them probably experienced (and may have privately expressed) frustration at Adonis’s failure to pay them much attention. But older, more experienced women were normally on hand to advise them that it was unladylike to pursue such men. The gentleman was perfectly capable of making his interest in you known if he felt any. If he had had an opportunity or two to make your acquaintance and never expressed any desire for it, that was probably because he felt none. He was destined for some other girl. This might be disappointing, but a girl simply had to accept reality and find some other young man to direct her aspirations towards. Her eventual husband often went to his grave cradled in the pleasing illusion that he had been her first choice.
Today, many girls fail to receive such sound advice from their elders. Instead, they are reared on Teen Vogue and Cosmopolitan, which teaches them that men are to be used for pleasure and excitement. And not just any men, of course: where would be the excitement in that? In effect, the message is: “You deserve the best, girl! Buy our magazine, master all our tricks of allure and seduction, and even if you used to be some mousy little thing no man ever looked at twice, you can have a thrilling relationship with some attractive, high-status man and become the envy of all your friends!” Inexperienced young women feed their minds on such trash, and it never harms the magazine’s bottom line that the advice doesn’t work: once readers have shelled out cash for the fantasy, the publishers can laugh at them all the way to the bank.
Obviously, raising a whole generation of girls and women on utopian fantasies does nothing to increase the proportion of Robert Redfords within the overall male population. It does, however, bring about certain social changes. Perhaps the most important is that young women become far less of what their elders used to call “ladylike.” They cast modesty aside and start frankly pursuing attractive men who do not necessarily take much interest in them.
One consequence is that such women experience a fair amount of rejection. The reader may, e.g., have heard the common female complaint that men will sometimes ask for their telephone number and then not call them. I used to feel sympathy for these women until I came to realize what was actually going on: it eventually dawns on Brad Pitt, through sheer force of circumstance, that the easiest and politest way to get rid of an unwanted woman is to ask for her number. Some Cosmo-girls are so determined that they literally will not go away until he does. One might imagine that after a few rounds of not getting called back, these ladies would begin to suspect the reason, but apparently many never do.
And I have seen dating advice aimed at the general male population warning them how much women hate it when men ask for their number and don’t call. The authors solemnly wag their fingers at the entire male sex’s lack of consideration for the ladies. But shouldn’t it be obvious that warning the average guy against using Brad Pitt’s technique for giving unwanted women the brush-off is not likely to be of much use to him? Personally, I have never had to make use of the phone number trick to get rid of a persistent female admirer, but if I were Brad Pitt I might well find myself forced to. Such men’s experience of women is radically different from that of most men. This is why little can be gained from reasoning about “men” as a homogeneous and undifferentiated class in the context of the sexual revolution.
So one consequence of the rise of sexually aggressive Cosmo-girls is that women experience more rejection than formerly. But not all such women find themselves rejected entirely. And this is where we run into the notorious, much-deplored, and generally misunderstood phenomenon of the college hookup scene. Let me introduce you to the characters.
First of all, we have Chad McDashly. Chad is tall and good-looking, with a chiseled jaw and charismatic personality. He was star quarterback of the varsity football team back in High School, where his classmates voted him “boy most likely to succeed.” Nowadays he is a promising pre-law student and well-known man about campus. Chad’s a really nice guy: he works hard and he plays hard. He likes girls too—lots of girls. It would never occur to him to want to hurt one of these charming creatures. And of course, lots of girls like Chad back. Whenever his studies leave him a little time, Chad enjoys socializing. Some of this involves his guy friends who engage with him in guy activities that women would not be interested in. But of course, being the healthy young fellow he is, he sometimes he enjoys interacting with the ladies as well. He runs into a lot of them at parties and places of recreation, and they are one of the delights of his life.
Now let me introduce Jane Average. Jane’s a nice girl: well-meaning, pretty enough (at least in the present bloom of her youth), and like all her friends, an assiduous reader of Cosmo and Vogue. Her life is going reasonably well, and she has little to complain about apart from the occasional encounter with some creepy guy who won’t leave her alone. But when Jane runs into Chad at a party, there is instant attraction (Jane is just certain that Chad can feel it too). All the tips and tricks from all those advice columns start crowding into her head as she carefully lays out her bait for him. She is so charming in his company that she is simply irresistible. It might be a real night for them to remember if only their brains were not both fogged with plenty of alcohol.
The next day, Chad wakes up first and is contentedly shaving his handsome features before the bathroom mirror when his thoughts are interrupted by a plaintive female voice from the bedroom. It says: “Am I ever going to see you again?”
This scene apparently gets played out on thousands of college campuses across the fruited plains nearly every weekend, and I am happy to concur with the critics that it is a symptom of something deeply wrong and troubling about our society. Before you rush to judgment, however, consider Chad’s position. If he were sufficiently articulate and polite, he might speak to Jane roughly as follows:
Ma’am, this is unfortunately not the first time I have found myself being asked that question under circumstances like the present. I really do think you are a swell girl. (So were the others.) But there are only twenty-four hours in the day. Most of my waking hours are occupied with classes, homework, sports practice, and hanging out with my buddies. You ask: will we see each other again? Sure, it’s possible. I like to party in that particular spot from time to time. If you keep coming there, we’ll almost certainly meet up again, and—always assuming I’m not busy with another young lady—I’ll be more than happy to renew our acquaintance! Until then, I wish you all the best.
Since I am a man, this speech of Chad McDashly’s does not sound terribly unreasonable to me, even though I have never had occasion to make one like it myself. But Jane is not a man, and to her it sounds like a cruel insult. To her it seems obvious that, given everything they have been to each other (since 1:00 AM), Chad ought to commit, in other words, become her exclusive man. Indeed, ideally, Chad should enter into a monogamous relationship with all the nice girls who like him, since all of them certainly deserve such a charming fellow—the editors of Vogue and Cosmo are in agreement on that point! But his highest priority should be Jane in particular, since she is clearly the most deserving. Why can’t he see this?
Now, this college hookup scene has been deplored by many other writers, but they usually make it sound very different from what I have just described. Back in the day I used to read Chronicles, the flagship paleoconservative magazine, and it was filled with indignant denunciations of young men like Chad combined with forceful appeals to the need to protect Jane from their sinister machinations. These Jeremiads all came from the pens of older male authors, and invariably referred to Chad as a “predator.” In this telling, America’s campuses are swarming with master seducers who deliberately break the hearts of poor, trusting young women whose every dream is exclusively directed toward Holy Matrimony (since women have no sex instinct). No punishment could be too severe for such men. If we could just get ahold of this wretched miscreant Chad and cut his balls off, everything would be alright again. This was the typical male traditionalist’s whole understanding of the sexual revolution, and his proposed solution to it.
(We may remark parenthetically that removing Chad’s body parts would hardly increase the number of women he was able to make happy, so from their point of view it would actually be counter-productive.)
The “predators” described by the gallant knights of conservative journalism are largely a figment of their imaginations, one inspired by the male protective instinct running amok in the vacuum created by their total ignorance of female choice. The expert rake who knows exactly how to push all a woman’s buttons to get her into bed is everywhere a rarity, and probably nowhere more so than among the naïve young men on college campuses. Most lack the faintest idea what makes a woman tick. The female sex instinct is totally unlike its male counterpart, and no man ever gains direct access to it: we are like a blind man trying to figure out another person’s favorite color. Without some external guidance or much painful experience, men usually say and do clumsy things that women only laugh at.
Furthermore, a woman’s principal button is pushed only by a man’s being Chad McDashly. This is not the kind of thing that can be learned from a course in seduction. Only a few secondary buttons (clothing choices, social skills, etc.) ever become accessible to men through learning; at best, a man can only improve his odds of success with the ladies a bit. That’s why my book is called Sexual Utopia in Power and not Roger Devlin Shows You How to Pick Up Girls. The latter title would have earned me more royalties, but I cannot turn anybody into an expert seducer able to press all a woman’s secondary buttons, and I especially cannot teach anyone how to become Chad McDashly.
In sum, the men who fulminate against Chad are not so much trying to protect young women from him as complacently dwelling on what they fancy is their own moral superiority to him: they are displaying sanctimony rather than gallantry. Their efforts might more usefully be spent explaining to young women why it is a really stupid idea simply to obey their hormones and jump straight into bed with Chad.
Commentary by these male traditionalists also generally assumes that Chad’s behavior is motivated by lust, while Jane’s is a search for love, i.e., that Jane’s heart is at stake, while Chad’s involvement is limited to other parts of his anatomy. This is also questionable.
Most people with a bit of experience understand that there is a distinction between love and mere sexual arousal. Love may well involve substantial sacrifice and is therefore morally admirable, while arousal is a mere fact of nature (which does not, of course, mean that there is anything wrong with it). But many young people do not quite grasp this distinction. Girls grow up hearing that they should only have sex with someone they love. So when they come of age and find themselves desiring intimacy with some man, they call it being in love. Love is a feeling, after all—isn’t it? And when a fellow like Chad goes strolling by, Jane experiences all sorts of simply delicious feelings. The poor girl practically has to start fanning herself! If that isn’t love, what could the word possibly refer to?
In fact, this is the form taken by sexual arousal in the human female. I cannot tell the reader much about it, since I have never experienced it. But just as a man deaf from birth is capable of knowing that something referred to as “sound” exists, I know that female sexual arousal both exists (since it has real- world effects such as Jane hooking up with Chad) and that it is distinct from what the same expression refers to in a man (since Jane is upset with Chad the next morning while Chad cannot understand why).
A person’s uncoerced actions are usually treated as pretty strong evidence of what he wants. If a guy runs off to the beach to go surfing every free moment he gets, most people would consider this strong evidence that he likes surfing. But female sexual behavior forms a conspicuous and unexplained exception to this otherwise obvious rule of inference. When thousands of young women hook up with men they have barely met without anyone holding a gun to their heads, the entire conservative commentariat with one voice rushes to assure anyone who will listen that none of them want to do what they are in fact doing. Their actual behavior is inadmissible as evidence of their desires.
Of course, if the author of one of these hand-wringing laments were to go and tell Chad that Jane did not really want to hook up with him, his mystified response would surely be: “Why, then, did she hook up with me?” The only alternative, after all, would have been for Chad to reject her. Would that have pleased Jane better?
I think these are reasonable questions that deserve an answer. The first part of that answer is probably to admit that Jane doesn’t really know what the hell she wants. This is a common condition with women, after all, especially when they are young. But that, too, is not really Chad’s fault. If Jane was concerned about whether her relations with Chad would continue, there were ways for her to gauge the odds of this in advance. She could have flirted with him for one evening, gone home alone, and then waited to see if he pursued her. Alas, the probabilities are that he would not have. This is why mothers used to advise their daughters not to set their hearts on the handsomest young man they had ever seen. If all else failed, Jane could simply have asked Chad about his intentions. Some men will lie, of course, but a shocking number actually like young women and have no wish to hurt or deceive them. It would at least have been better than nothing.
Steven E. Rhoads, author of Taking Sex Differences Seriously, came across such men in the course of his research,
men whose consciences induced them to limit the number of partners they might have. These men felt guilty because of “their partners’ reaction to casual relations rather than because of their own: really hurting a woman by just ‘screwing and dumping her’ makes some of the men ‘feel like shit.’” Rob explained: “If a woman wanted just sex, it would be cool, but they always get involved. That’s why I usually only sleep with girls that I really like. I really hate hurting girls. It makes me feel guilty.”
Rob is clearly no saint—note the qualifier “usually”—but neither does he really match the description of the sexual “predator” I constantly come across. While attractive men can represent a danger to young women, this is not necessarily because they are like tigers crouching in the underbrush eager to pounce on unsuspecting victims. The true source of danger is simply sexual attraction itself, not necessarily the moral failings of the attractive individual. How unfortunate that Rob had to discover the nature of women only in the process of hurting several! Perhaps he could have used some external guidance no less than Jane.
But we should also clearly understand that there is no way for such men to avoid hurting women altogether. Chad was correct to observe that Jane would not have enjoyed getting her implicit offer of a hookup rejected. Who enjoys being rejected? Yet she did not enjoy the morning after the hookup either. Such is the strange, apparently paradoxical nature of women: unhappy when you do not hook up with them, unhappy when you do. Chad never expected women to be so complicated!
At the bottom of all this agonizing over young people hooking up, of course, is the same basic problem which faced those film crews back in the 1970s: too many women lusting after Redford and not enough Redford. But earlier generations got a few things right. In the long run, it was better for a woman to get rejected by that fine figure of a man who set her heart to dreaming, even if he had to give her a painful and humiliating brush-off, than for her to rush into an intimacy with no future.
Enjoyed this article?
Leave a tip in the jar!
So far we have a running amount of $5,00
1 | $5,00 |
Related
-
Not Hooking Up
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 618
-
The Women’s Resistance
-
Rediscovering a Politics of Limits
-
American Degeneracy Laid Bare: Examining the Documentary “The Lost Children of Rockdale County” on its 25th Anniversary
-
Robespierre: Embodiment of the French Revolution
-
Less Than Human: An Argument for Prescribing It to Certain Transgender People
-
Making a Difference by Resigning from the Gene Pool
102 comments
In my experience, I think other factors, such as height, charisma, and status matter more for male attractiveness to females, than objective looks. (and money money money.) in the developmental years, high school and college, women may go off of what they think will be predictors of future status, which might be height and looks, but once it comes to the phase of defined achievement, those aforementioned factors matter more than looks. Also, girls have higher testosterone briefly in their youth than in their later years, which is obviously related to visual attraction.
I am unmarried and sometimes complain about this money factor with women to my mother. And she says, “yeah, well money is our skinny.”
It’s sort of makes sense that women have higher standards for males than males have for females. In many societies, in fact, the vast majority of non-European societies, harem style romantic relationships exist in which a ruler or well-to-do person has multiple wives or concubines. This implies that a large part of the male population is incel or doesn’t have a mate. The situation also exist for many primates, such as baboons, where only one dominant male mates with the females. This makes evolutionary sense, because the male genotype is more under the sharp edge of evolutionary competition, via strength and intelligence, with other males in the status hierarchy, than are females. The better part of group gene selection takes place in the male end.
The money factor is vastly overrated. Starting from the poverty or subsistence line, fertility actually goes down for Whites until they reach about $300,000 a year, which is a ridiculously high number.
So going from being a McDonalds worker on minimum wage to someone making 200K does nothing for you.
I went from subsistence to making 6 figures in the last 8 years or so and thought it would make a huge difference. I worked my ass off partly because I thought it would help me find a good woman.
Actually women are incredibly bored to hear about your income and every luxury spending item from vehicles to trips abroad.
They only care when it gets to an extreme (300k) which is why Musk, despite being goofy, has so many baby mommas.
You’ve been going on some nice trips, I saw. Anyone with the qualities to arrange Charlottesville should do well. Employers take one look at me and they’re like,”we’re desperate but not that desperate!”
Me too, my friend! That’s why I had to start my own businesses. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I’ve lived in many places and am now back in my future elephant graveyard in Long Island New York. I will say being here, that if for some stupid reason they don’t care about how much money you have, they will care about how much your willing to spend on them and how much reflects on your overall image. As for relationship needs, if they are willing to enter one, levels of control plays primary. What a pessimist.
Your name is so generic. It’s just like the two most common names put together.
I know, my real name is very uncommon, as I perceived myself once. I use this name to represent the commoner. Your title is also very profound as are your thoughts. A lot of profound thinkers here.
Men show preference for beauty. Women to a man’s social prestige, generally a correlate with money. Chris Rock, a comedian who has been through divorce, has some funny and keen observations. “Fellows, if you lose your job, you’re going to lose your woman. She may not leave the day you lose it, but the countdown has begun.” Mr. Rock also explains why he prefers younger women, citing one who wanted him to gift her with some shoes. He compared to an older woman who wanted him to buy her a roof for her house.
Both genders are experiencing more rejection in the age on online dating. They are overwhelmed by choice and start trying to appeal to the upper 1%, then work their way down until they “settle”. The point at which they settle is now a decade or more than in past generations, reaching infinity for some. Once many women finally get their lite-version of ‘Chad’, the real work of the relationship begins. She must then seek to change everything about him.
… But an excellent piece above. I agree that teenage girls to college age women are more ‘looks’ focused, but as they age their focus tends more toward social prestige and wealth. Teen to young adult men are obviously beauty focused and remain so through adulthood, but also increasingly the value of a stable temperament. I used to wholeheartedly believe that beauty corrupts a woman’s personality, but later found that there are plenty of average looking women of grating character, especially on one side of the ideological line. Not to leave men off the hook, the same street runs in both directions.
Another demonstration that our elite is so much better than their elite.
I’m an older man on the dating scene. After a long dry spell, success, starting last year. Pretty, much younger women with good bodies, are turning up on a regular basis, receptive and interested. All that us non-Chads can do, do, and often, over a long period of time. Wolves make a kill only 1 time in 10. It’s a numbers game.
So much suffering could be avoided by seeking out guidance from those with wisdom, but most will just bloody their noses and learn very little even from that. I saw a graph from Bumble of female’s advanced filters for height, and how of course taller men are more desirable. It started rising around 5’11”, topped out at 6’6” (good luck, ladies), and many still wanted men taller than that. The longer this continues the greater chance we’ll see Female Thunderdome reality tv.
Giving the sex that struggles to make a decision The Choice is the funniest trick nature has pulled yet.
“Their efforts might more usefully be spent explaining to young women why it is a really stupid idea simply to obey their hormones and jump straight into bed with Chad.”
Efforts more usefully spent trying to regulate the behavior of half the human population than that of a few, typically high IQ males… Logic?
Yes, the only thing likely to work, is the threat of some immediate and socially cataclysmic consequence like an unabortable pregnancy or effective shaming as a wanton. Or perhaps for some a firmly instilled belief that such behaviour is against the will of God/the gods (and goddesses).
What’s your point?
Male society controlling the sexual philandering of top males has been a cornerstone of Western civilization. It’s one of the things that sets us apart from, let’s say, high IQ East Asians, where the top males hoarded wives and concubines.
My Eastern European great-grandfathers and grandfathers all recalled jolly good memories of duelling with and even beating up philanderers who ruined young girls in the community. The girls were slapped too, but no one thought they were capable of solving this problem. A girl should be madly in love all the time, that’s normal.
Historically, in most well-paid, prestigious positions, even in places like the entertainment industry, there was a requirement to be married and living an exemplary private life. Pre-WW2 the state here even prescribed the size of the home and the number of maids, the minimum wardrobe, etc. A gentleman was supposed to live in a certain style, and a public scandal meant no promotion, or even termination.
I don’t even understand what the author is trying to achieve here, apart from his obvious pleasure in mocking foolish girls, and the easy scores with a certain kind of male audience.
Chad should be told by his elders and superiors to get married, propagate his fabulous genes in a family setting, and get on with his great projects asap. And since he’s intelligent and needs the support of other males in his life to get ahead, or even in sport or other leisure activities, he would do that. That’s the easiest solution of this problem.
Well, I am sympathetic to the old ways but curtailing the activities of devilishly handsome rakes is only going to work if maidens are actually virtuous. And I mean that in the sense that a maiden falls in love with a man (Prince Charming) because of how he makes her feel not how she anticipates he’ll make her feel during coitus. At one time a virgin, being “possessed” to varying extents by a man, was entitled to consider him betrothed to her. His refusal to honour the arrangement was the impetus for your swashbuckling ancestors.
I think of Chesterton’s Fence. So many of the cautionary attitudes, advice and rules about sex that our ancestors put together over aeons and are experienced as oppressive during cultural moments of breakdown represent a hard-earned wisdom designed to prevent the even greater damage that comes from ignoring them. What appears to so many of our contemporaries as cruelty was both in intent and in result, kindness.
FRD’s light-hearted style here is as welcome as his blunt observations.
A few thoughts. First up, there’s more to the picture than looks alone. I’ve noticed that with women, sexy is only half about appearance; the rest is behavior. I’ve observed a number of them who had middling average looks, yet carried themselves in a way that made them stunning. It works the other way, too. Acting nasty is like taking an hour to get dolled up, and then rolling around in mud before entering the party. If someone’s bad attitude repels someone who could’ve been the love of her life, then that’s quite unfortunate!
As for guys, there’s more to the picture too – a lot more. For example, when Brad Pitt was still a carpenter, he was pretty much invisible in Los Angeles. He had the same top-shelf looks, but no money and status yet. Rock stars are highly sought-after, even the unattractive ones, but if they had no musical talent, then a lot of them would be dope fiends with little going for them. Of course, we all know what running or jumping with a ball can do for someone’s popularity. George Soros is married to a hottie, even though he looks like Gothmog the Orc. Henry Kissinger described power as the ultimate aphrodisiac, and he’s looked awful since the 1970s. If money and status are such powerful mating cues, then I’m afraid this is rather dysgenic given the way money and status get acquired these days.
I was in a meeting years ago, the only man with six women, all of whom were middle-aged professionals. During a lull, somehow the Sopranos came up. One of the women expressed great attraction to Tony Soprano and all the others immediately affirmed her.
I was astonished. I said, “Tony Soprano is fat, sweaty, balding, uncouth and violent.” The woman replied, “Oh, but the power.”
And there we go.
I just love Dr Devlin’s dry humour and (fairly) even-handed treatment of this tinderbox. Are there really any magazine readers left in colleges to peruse Vogue and Cosmo? Regarding perceptions of attractiveness, of course young women are pickier about men than vice versa, given the historical respective consequences of coitus for each sex.
It may be pedantic but I wish more writers on our side would eschew the indefinite pronoun “they” in favour of “one” or even “he or she”. Also on the linguistic front, it would be interesting to know the point and the mechanism by which the nineteenth century “making love” meaning courtship transmuted into a treacly and misleading euphemism for the sex act.
I, for one, wish that thon had taken off as a gender-neutral pronoun. People ridicule it because they think that it’s for people who don’t identify as male or female but that’s not really the point, the point is as a replacement for “he/she” or “they” when one either doesn’t know the gender of the person being referred to or one can’t because one’s making a general point (maybe talking about “the user of this device” in an instruction manual or something).
Prior to second wave feminism most of these situations were happily covered by “he” as an indefinite pronoun, except where context implied a female was probably meant, when “she” was used. But the war between the sexes dictated a war on “gender specific language” which started playing out in Oz in the early 1980s. “He or she” became a thing, mandatory in educational institutions by the 1990s, and the first line of Australia’s national anthem, written ca 1914, was changed from “Australia’s sons, let us rejoice..” to “Australians all…”. I can still remember the pain I felt when I first had to sing that at school. “Australia’s sons” seems quaint now but boys and girls had sung that quite happily for decades, believing themselves to be two halves of the same coin. They have really done a number on us. My childish discomfort was well warranted.
Yeah, fair point. Though I guess that went much more naturally hand in hand with a world where men really did do the vast majority of jobs, there weren’t women in the workplace, and it really was firemen, sportsmen, and businessmen being referred to without mistake. But I take the point, and etymologically “man” can historically refer to any human, anyway. Feminism is dreadful and everything about it really needs to be binned.
I’m curious: Where did “thon” originate?
I was not familiar with this term. My county school board is trying to legislate some pro-trans policy & a big deal was made out of using ‘correct’ pronouns. I said that if I were a county teacher I would refuse to use any pronouns at all, before I would call an obviously male student “she”. I would call the student by whatever name he wished, even a boy named “Sue”, but I would refuse to deny reality by remarking on the student’s trans-state with improperly used pronouns.
It was coined in the mid 19th century by Charles Crozat Converse, a lawyer I believe, from “that + one”.
Interesting read.
I think you nailed the college hook-up scene to a T.
In my view, I think the extremes of sexual attractiveness in the dating market largely sort themselves out after college and personality variables become much more important.
Obviously, not only Chads and Stacys are getting married and having children.
I find that charisma, aggression and extroversion are really underrated predictors of sexual success compared to the commonly trotted out variables of income, looks and physical fitness.
Obviously these are not mutually exclusive. Receiving positive feedback from women in formative years increases confidence and assertiveness, whereas rejection and time spent alone have the opposite effect.
Extroversion and charisma count for much. Perhaps persistence instead of ‘aggression’? There do not seem to be many extroverts among the incels. Even very successful, progressive-type women expect a man to ‘make the first move’. It is a modern day test of courage offering rewards, but also the risk of not only rejection but potential accusations of being a pest or harassment. The animated King of the Hill has a funny scene explaining how the very unspectacular Boomhauer always seems to be with a woman. We follow him around to find that he is hitting on practically every female he sees, and indifferently shrugs off rejection and moves on with what looks like a 1% success rate.
That’s what I was thinking too. The article had much discussion about coeds throwing themselves at Chad, but there’s more to it than that. Women might get a bit flirty, but hardly ever do the approaching. They only throw themselves at celebrities. Therefore, Chad must have at least some charisma and take the lead during the interaction. He’s ultimately not doing the accepting and rejecting; he’s pursuing potential opportunities and making the first move. Still, if he’s going to be a responsible seducer, he should let them know prior to the main event that he’s only out for a good time and isn’t contemplating a committed relationship.
Anyway, there’s an old proverb that should be revived: “Never choose a date not fit for a mate.”
“I think you nailed the college hook-up scene to a T.”
Seriously? I recommend Rob Henderson’s article All the Single Ladies as a starting point.
One other phenomena about the college scene is that women outnumber men. Nearly 60% of students are women, meaning there are almost 3 women for every 2 men. The rules of supply and demand in this instance mean women have to work harder to attract men than if the numbers were even or skewed the other way.
When I went to college there were more men than women. We would have friendly debates with the gals about how this put them in a more favorable odds position. By and large they would deny this, saying that here the men were disproportionately lower quality, neutralizing the ratio… not only that, the men were so middling that it was really the women who were at disadvantage. You could wonder if this was simply a rhetorical strategy to deflate the inflated confidence of men, but I’m convinced most of them really believed this… they did not feel the normal distribution applies to both genders, borne out by the OK Cupid data, above. Part of the maturing of both sexes is seeking what is ‘good enough’ vs the ideal. The internet and social media slow down this maturation.
This was an interesting read.
I read Wendy Shalit’s book ‘A Return to Modesty’ in the late 90s. I agreed with many of her sentiments. It looks like Wendy, an Orthodox Jew, and her husband have 3 children together. (I mention this because too many women doling out relationship advice have not had a successful marital relationship themselves.) I remember thinking her second book was not as informative as her first, and I skipped her third entirely, because I disliked that the title contained the term “self-esteem”. To my mind, *self-respect* is continuous and integral, but ‘self-esteem’ is a much less important, pop-psych flighty feeling that requires being sought after.
I’m always thinking about what advice I’d give my very studious and introverted son regarding how to pick a compatible wife. (My other sons are social butterflies, the complete opposite of their parents!)
Some of the best advice I’ve heard regarding strategy for choosing someone for a long-lasting marriage (for either men or women) is to not marry a “10” even if you can. Deliberately, don’t place yourself in the position of being too over-the-top attracted to your spouse. This will cut down on lots of unnecessary drama!
The importance of LOOKS is the big elephant in the room of metapolitics. Most metapolitical narratives run on the UGLY vs ATTRACTIVE dichotomy.
The mainstream liberal propaganda always shows “rasists” as UGLY and the “openminded” liberals as young and GOOD-LOOKING. In fact many good-looking anti-whites indeed are narcissists who despise the pro-whites as ugly incels or toothless rednecks. Others are themselves hideous “spiteful mutants” but they join the anti-white crowd in a wish to compensate their lack of physical beauty by adopting the “pretty” political views.
William Pierce covered this phenomenon in his broadcast titled “Images”.
I should perhaps clarify that when I speak of a man’s attractiveness, I am not using the word as a mere synonym of “good looks,” but to refer to all components of what makes a man attractive to a woman. A self-assured bearing is quite valuable. I remember once reading that a poll among women regarding the world’s most attractive man was won by Fitzwilliam Darcy–the fictional hero of Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice! (Some of the women were probably thinking of the actor who incarnated the character in some recent dramatization.) Still, Darcy’s “pride,” in Austin’s regency English, was what we would call arrogance–overweening self-confidence, meant to refer to a fault rather than a virtue. Fault or not, many women find it attractive since it does tend to mark a man as being of high status.
All that said, women care more about looks than they wish to admit. How can a woman know in a split second that a certain man is “not her type?” It can only be his looks, since that is all she sees in the first split second.
I shouldn’t sound so misogynistic. Actually, other factors can play a deciding role, however, material comfort has to be present for a lady.
“arrogance–overweening self-confidence, meant to refer to a fault rather than a virtue. Fault or not, many women find it attractive since it does tend to mark a man as being of high status.”
High confidence is an attractive trait, and somewhat rare. So is true pride in one’s earned accomplishments. I overhead a youngish-sounding guy announce: “I need to find a wife who is worthy of me!” (If his desire is to keep that particular wife for a very long time, he should strive to find a wife who is really into his character & personality, because people’s “worth” can change drastically overnight: loss of a job, physical injury, illness, stocks crashing, etc.)
“All that said, women care more about looks than they wish to admit. How can a woman know in a split second that a certain man is “not her type?” It can only be his looks, since that is all she sees in the first split second.”
If you’re a young White man in a multi-culti Democrat state, simply not having jello-colored hair, long bangs, & pierced ears, pushes you to the top! Just look at Luigi Mangione from Baltimore County, MD. So many women were completely smitten with his looks: curly (more ethnic looking) *brown* hair, *brown* eyes (not sapphire blue, emerald green, or even hazel) & he’s ~5’10” or under.
I have one question for you Mr. Devlin: pray tell, who is the woman & beheaded man featured on the cover of your book?
Judith with the head of Holofernes, a painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder. The book cover was designed by Kevin Slaughter, not me (although I was pleased with it).
I didn’t know about that one. I have a copy, and I thought it was Salome with what was left of John the Baptist.
Luigi Mangione is getting wolf whistles (vixen whistles?) from some women because he is famous and a ‘folk hero’ in some circles. Without the fame, many women would quietly find him attractive while also mocking that he has shirtless photos posted.
His female fans do not represent the ‘normal distribution’ of women in general.
I have a theory that whenever you see these guys who shot up the world, left a manifesto, and they have shirtless pictures of themselves all over the Internet, you’re dealing with a pathological narcissist.
An academic discipline like sociology would normally be used to come to a similar conclusion that’s in this article, however, academics are mainly concerned about vague notions of social justice. I believe that some of the left’s anger toward whites is because physical attraction is a factor in dating and relationships. I also believe that is one of the reasons that some blacks and a lot of people in other races have such hostility toward whites. It’s because of the level of attractiveness of whites in general. Some sociologists refer to whites who don’t date outside of their race as sexual racism. They can be considered part of the spiteful mutants in my opinion.
Jefferson Fisher has been popping up on Facebook lately. He’s a trial lawyer, author and speaker who lives in Texas and makes videos about interpersonal communication. I’ve found his advice on communication very helpful, especially with women. Sam Dickson recommends Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People for movement folks. In the same vein, I’d recommend Fisher. Check out his website and especially his videos.
I’m glad you’ve found something that works for you.
Personally, I’d never, ever, trust a lawyer for relationship advice. These are two completely different sets of skills. He might be a great & $uccessful trial lawyer, but does his wife stay with him, & show him respect? How do their children turn out? Does his kid become trans like Elon Musk’s? Was he able to teach his kids how to manage disagreements within a household, work as a team, & teach his kids how to pick a high quality spouse with whom to start their own family?
My dad was top trial attorney, yet the most heck-pecked man in his own home, I’ve ever seen in my entire life (half a century).
Good points.
Actually he doesn’t give relationship advice; he makes points about communication generally.
Hey Roger,
As usual, your work here is excellent. I just wanted to drop by and say that Sexual Utopia in Power is one of my favorite books. I consider it the bible of sexual dynamics, have read it several times, have several lines memorized verbatim, wish I had it in my teenage years in the 90’s, and have ranted and raved about it to my wife, friends, and a few family members. I even had a female co-worker who bought it by way of my recommendation.She was particularly intrigued after I sent her the essay “The Question of Female Masochism”.
I believe if I had your book in my teens or early twenties, I would have had children and been married sooner. Your writings, and those of Daniel Amneus and Stephen Baskerville have had an enormous impact on me as a man, father, and husband.
Thank you. I wish I had had the book to read when I was young as well. Nowhere do I write from greater personal expertise than when describing the inability of young men to understand women. Someone once said you know you are too old for love when it starts making sense to you. I began getting a clue in around my forties.
I second the appreciation for the book. Sexual Utopia, Jim’s Gender Psychosis, and Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance I believe are the three most important books out there for our women I recommend for all. I’ll add CC’s essay ‘A Woman’s Guide to Identifying Psychopaths’ as equally crucial for avoiding Mr. Wrong. People want actual gender studies that costs pennies to whatever is squandered on tuition, here it is right on a silver platter. The ‘Rotating Polyandry and its Enforcers’ chapter was infuriatingly difficult to read and digest. How many truly know what these criminal scum courts do to White fathers, and these repulsive judges’ sadistic glee at ruining them to the point of suicide. Its counterpoint are these muslim kaffrikans in Europe coddled and protected by the very same pro-rape courts against our White daughters. Odd how ‘brave and empowered’ feminists are quick to shut up about aziz when there’s costly consequences for transgressing the dogma of a genocidally anti-White regime. That alone is worthy of revolution. One of the many unaccountable diabolic shames of our time that must be forced into public view.
Could those Conservative journalists’ willingness to denounce Chad as a “predator” not also stem from envy over his success with the ladies? It must feel very unfair to a Christian man (as those journalists overwhelmingly would have been) of an earlier (read: pre-Sexual Revolution) generation that Chad gets to have relations with numerous women while they had to respect the rules of the game and commit to one.
I like the writer´s style and humor a lot. As a former relatively succesful womanizer I would only add, that the dating or hookup changes of men seems to change totally when we leave youth and enter middle-age. I used to be a tall average or nice looking guy. My college years in the 2000´s were pretty much sexual supermarket. Now that I am middle-aged I have entered sexual desert. Women of same age are of course occupied with their marriages and families. The past 10 years have been much more puritan than the 2000´s. People hookup less in bars than they used to. Anyhow, youth and middleage are very different sexual zones for most average-looking men with not a lot of power and status.
Yes, there is a great paradox here. It is common for people of color, especially mulattoes and Asians, to be very envious of attractive Whites. The fact that beautiful white people are still the measure of attractiveness is a great source of bitterness and anger for non-whites. This also applies to Jews, who are mostly ugly and envious of the Nordics. On the other hand, most highly attractive Whites are completely ignorant about racial issues. They are so privileged that they live in their own world where socially negative phenomena are practically invisible. Anti-white politics usually doesn’t directly affect beautiful Whites. Also, they only associate with selected non-whites from their own privileged social group. But I feel like that has changed a bit recently as public spaces in European countries have become unsafe for white women because of the constant harassment from brown men. As a result of this everyday exposure, even attractive white people are suddenly seeing the immigration problem and some are perhaps starting to question the liberal narrative.
That’s right. I would say that most physically attractive white men have trouble identifying with other less fortunate Whites. They feel there’s a gap between them and the rest of their race. They see themselves quite rightly as unique individuals, without any connection to a common nationality or cultural heritage, which this regime encourages them to do. Most of them don’t care about politics either and are only interested in their personal issues, while others are colorless normies and parrot anti-racist clichés.
Attractive men generally have trouble getting excited about a political idea. They’ve always lived their lives in easy mode. Either they lack nothing and just cultivate their personal relationships and hobbies, or they are conformists because, quite rightly, they feel that this world gives them ample opportunity. A lot of the frustrations that the average white guy has don’t apply to the top 20% handsome at all and they have no empathy about them.
Basically, men fall into two camps when they see other men complaining about today’s dating market. They can be individualists who see it as an opportunity to signal their own superiority and fitness by putting down the “losers,” or they can look at it from a more empathic and collectivist point of view and recognize that this is no way to run a society.
Yes, that situation is covered in the book “The Empathy Gap” by William Collins. Wish I would have read these books in my teens!
DM: January 15, 2025 Jefferson Fisher has been popping up on Facebook lately. He’s a trial lawyer, author and speaker who lives in Texas and makes videos about interpersonal communication…
—
Much of our struggle today, unfortunately, is on the legal front and courts are generally in our enemies’ hands. We must have competent trial attorneys in our corner. They are rare, but necessary. Sam Dickson is one of those rare men with the courage to stand for us. I’m with Kim. She doesn’t trust one like Mr. Fisher for his advice on “hooking up.” I would not trust him for his popping up on Faceberg.
—
Sam Dickson recommends Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People for movement folks…
—
Sam’s recommendation of Carnegie’s classic, was shared, believe it or not, by Ben Klassen, whose two most recommended books, oddly enough, were that and Nicholas Carter’s The Christ Myth. an author and book almost as hated by Christians as Klassen and his books. We sell Carter’s title, but it is currently out of stock. Read about it here: The Christ Myth by Nicholas Carter – Cosmotheism
Found this summary of Carnegie’s book:
PART ONE Fundamental Techniques in Handling People 1 “If You Want to Gather Honey, Don’t Kick Over the Beehive” 2 The Big Secret of Dealing with People 3 “He Who Can Do This Has the Whole World with Him. He Who Cannot Walks a Lonely Way”
PART TWO Six Ways to Make People Like You 1 Do This and You’ll Be Welcome Anywhere 2 A Simple Way to Make a Good First Impression 3 If You Don’t Do This, You Are Headed for Trouble 4 An Easy Way to Become a Good Conversationalist 5 How to Interest People 6 How to Make People Like You Instantly
PART THREE How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking 1 You Can’t Win an Argument 2 A Sure Way of Making Enemies — and How to Avoid It 3 If You’re Wrong, Admit It 4 A Drop of Honey 5 The Secret of Socrates 6 The Safety Valve in Handling Complaints 7 How to Get Cooperation 8 A Formula That Will Work Wonders for You 9 What Everybody Wants 10 An Appeal That Everybody Likes 11 The Movies Do It. TV Does It. Why Don’t You Do It? 12 When Nothing Else Works, Try This
PART FOUR Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment 1 If You Must Find Fault, This Is the Way to Begin 2 How to Criticize — and Not Be Hated for It 3 Talk About Your Own Mistakes First 4 No One Likes to Take Orders 5 Let the Other Person Save Face 6 How to Spur People On to Success 7 Give a Dog a Good Name 8 Make the Fault Seem Easy to Correct 9 Making People Glad to Do What You Want
In fact, men as a group seem to have it worse.
That’s an interesting turn of phrase. I guess by using the term “seem” instead of “is,” we can evade the duty to actually provide some empirical support for our self-serving assertions. Anyway, it doesn’t “seem” that way to me at all. Yes, women think most men are below-average looking. Of course, if we were hot to trot for every other Tom, Dick, and Harry that crossed our paths, that too would be cause for contempt of women. (It’s always something.) More importantly, unlike men, we don’t agree on who is hot and who is not.
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2009/07/11/whos-hot-men-it-seems-agree/
And that makes all the difference:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
The hypergamy hoax is pure projection, nothing more. It is men who compete viciously for a small set of attractive women, and we can all see it anytime two girls who aren’t roughly equal in terms of conventional beauty appear in public together. The less-attractive girl is completely ignored and noone even cares to get to know her. When they can’t get one oof the pretty girls, the fake incel crybabies spend all their time fapping to internet porn rather than going out and meeting women they might actually like spending time with for reasons other than sex. Their contempt for women is such that they cannot conceive of that ever even being possible.
Apparently, we’re now talking about excluding women wholesale from entire lines of work to solve the fake incel problem, and not because we can’t compete with men, but precisely because we can. I have a better idea. If we need to restrict the labor supply, and we’re not shy about resorting to coercive measures, how about mandatory retirement age of 55 for a start. That would be a win-win-win. Higher wages for men and women; more leisure time for geriatrics, and a more reliable and competent workforce for society. Yes, women need more accommodations for childbirth and motherhood, but then old people get sick more, and they’re past their physical and intellectual prime on top anyway.
Of course, the truth is that the win-win-win nature of such an idea is precisely the problem. It must be win-lose, because, as many feminists have long suspected, some men just can’t stand coexisting as equals with women or watching them succeed. They attempt to whitewash this small-minded pettiness by claiming that they are actually giving women what they want: providers we can swoon over.
Yes, we certainly want providers, and we want providers who treat us with tenderness as well as the respect due to a fully-fledged, grownup partner. Other items on our wishlist:
A cat that walks on a leash and barks at strangers
An SUV that gets 40 miles to the gallon
A cashmere sweater that you can wash in hot water
etc…
I actually managed to land one of these near-mythical creatures: a husband who supports me and our children financially, but treats me as an equal partner all the same. I had no idea how strange this was until I started to talking to other women about their husbands. It’s so bad that I actually have a special, small subset of girlfriends I talk to about our husbands’ annoying habits. Yes, I’m serious. You can’t complain about your husband leaving his dirty clothes on the floor (right next to the hamper) to a girl whose husband carries on more or less openly with other women, stays out all night gambling or snorting meth, etc.
Now, the fact is, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that most men don’t deserve a SAHM wife, because they can’t resist the temptation to abuse the power of a sole breadwinner, and many can’t even manage it when they aren’t the sole breadwinner. They can’t provide for and treat their wives with respect and dignity at the same time. I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong about this. As it stands, many of us have to choose, and we have made our choice clear: we want the freedom to walk away from toxic relationships, even if that means we have to take responsibility for ourselves. If men would like to take this freedom away from us, you can certainly do that, but we’re not going to pretend you’re doing us a favor.
As I recently said elsewhere, the time is coming for someone else to take over this beat. If all the evidence I have offered so far to refute this female hypergamy nonsense hasn’t done the trick yet, nothing ever will, because it’s not about truth; it’s about power. For some, maybe it’s just the inability to admit you’re wrong, along with sufficient intellectual power to justify your continued belief in what is evidently false.
If so, I understand. It’s not easy to admit that your cherished beliefs and assumptions are in error. For years, I have laughed at radical feminists who claim there is “still much work to be done” despite the fact that women have had equal rights for many decades now. They say that rights without power are not secure, because “the patriarchy” cannot be trusted to govern us fairly and protect our rights. Here I thought they were paranoid, because they failed to appreciate the essential goodness of White men. Ten years ago, I would have laughed at the idea that any significant number of White men would ever plot to take away our rights. I’m not laughing anymore.
I guess I was wrong about White men. I still think the attempt to reverse feminism will fail, though, unless you can find a way to stop men from caring about their daughters.
https://youtu.be/Q8fhhpX019M?si=Q8U7oL4yhBgDml92
Sadly, you will ghettoize, and therefore doom, White Nationalism in the attempt.
Addendum, As I said, I have already adduced ample evidence to refute this hypergamy nonsense, but for good measure, here’s some more. Who is most likely to marry by profession? The richest, most prestigious? Nope: clergy, in other words, men who understand that fapping is not a substitute for marriage because “it is not good for the man to be alone.”
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/want-to-be-married-these-jobs-have-the-highest-marriage-rate
Your quibbling about “seems” and demand for evidence strikes me as a bit silly, since Devlin provides it in the sentences to follow, by citing the OKCupid study that seems to show that females using the app rate 80% of men as “below average.” That’s not a problem with the men. Nor is it a problem with “hoe math.” It indicates a high degree of female narcissism that well-ordered societies need to restrain.
I’m the one for getting as many women as possible out of the workforce. Women having parity in the job market:
1. Reduces wages, making it hard for families with single breadwinners to exist, which
2. Makes it harder for women to have children and for men to support them.
The way to do reduce female participation is to ban women from some jobs entirely: the military, firefighting, policing. Others jobs should have caps on female participation to keep them well under 50%: law, politics, higher education, publishing. Why? Because too many women have spoiled these professions. Still other jobs should have no caps, but also no legal troubles with excluding women from their workspaces. And nothing should stop women from going into business for themselves. This would allow plenty of opportunities for women who don’t wish to marry, can’t marry, who have lost a husband, etc. But it would also nudge society back to a single breadwinner nuclear family, which offers more people opportunities for happiness and addresses the dysgenic and demographic problems caused by feminism.
I think the basic problem was already in the transition from a society of primary producers to a society of single employees. In fact, separate employment pits spouses against each other and makes higher number of children very unlikely. When I researched my family history, I realized that it was the family farm or the family business that both made large families possible and kept men and women together. It is interesting, for example, how often in the interwar period there were families where the man was a long-lying invalid and the woman did everything on the farm or in the shop with a few hired help. Yet these families survived with multiple offspring.
Your quibbling about “seems” and demand for evidence strikes me as a bit silly, since Devlin provides it in the sentences to follow, by citing the OKCupid study that seems to show that females using the app rate 80% of men as “below average.” That’s not a problem with the men. Nor is it a problem with “hoe math.” It indicates a high degree of female narcissism that well-ordered societies need to restrain.
Words don’t matter; actions do. That is the point of the TechCrunch article I posted. The failure of Devlin’s case rests on what he conveniently omits: that is, that men don’t actually contact all these women they say nice things about. Women, on the other hand, are more generous in whom they actually contact. Men say all these women are fine to look at, then they ignore them because they don’t think they’re good enough for them. Women do the opposite. We say men are not attractive, and then go ahead and contact them anyway. Yet, somehow, we’re the narcissists!
Reduces wages, making it hard for families with single breadwinners to exist, which
Old people working past their prime reduces wages, too. They should retire and downsize, so young families can afford a house.
Makes it harder for women to have children and for men to support them.
But I thought we were supposed to be excluded from college because we need to have kids in our early 20s. If we’re over the hill at 30, that leaves plenty of time for any career we like, unless we’re just looking for excuses, that is.
The way to do reduce female participation is to ban women from some jobs entirely: the military, firefighting, policing.
Oh, I don’t know. It seems to me you might need one or two women around for undercover operations, or even fitting through a narrow pass in a burning building.
Others jobs should have caps on female participation to keep them well under 50%: law, politics, higher education, publishing. Why? Because too many women have spoiled these professions.
I don’t think we’ve ruined anything. Rather, I suspect that what damage has been done has to do with the fact that White men handed our society over to our fellow White people after WWII.
But it would also nudge society back to a single breadwinner nuclear family, which offers more people opportunities for happiness and addresses the dysgenic and demographic problems caused by feminism.
Whether it offers “more opportunities for happiness” is precisely the question here.
I’m not at all sure that feminism has caused these demographic problems. I think you could reverse feminism altogether and we would still have low birthrates, because White men don’t want many children. As long as they have access to birth control, they will use it or insist that there wives do so.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, Israel has a very healthy birthrate, and they manage this without excluding women from anything, even among highly-educated career women. They don’t let petty gender disputes undermine their national solidarity. If we’re sincerely trying to solve problems here, rather than just pander to hateful rejects, it seems to me should at least consider the possibility that what they’re doing will work for us, too.
I suppose if we’re all expected to have six kids, then that won’t leave time for a career, but I thought we decided we weren’t going to get into a breeding contest with Third Worlders. Besides, that wouldn’t be sustainable, anyway, given that infant mortality is now extremely rare.
As for dysgenics, I always find it amusing that these manosphere guys will tell you point blank that men don’t care much about intelligence, and choose their mates primarily on physical beauty. They admit that women do care about intelligence, and choose their mates accordingly. Yet, despite these facts, we are to blame for dysgenic trends! Men won’t be blamed for nuthin’.
Lexi,
“I don’t think we’ve ruined anything.”
By design, we have been promoted to do just that –cripple & weaken entire systems. My sis is a retired USCG Rear Admiral. She would have n-e-v-e-r been promoted to that level if she was geo-political, race savvy, JQ’d, & nationalist.
Only naive men (mostly gay ones) & liberal women get promoted to key decision-making positions. Because, like clockwork, here’s what happens in every developed country once they rise to power:
(10 min vid on Sweden, from ~7 years ago, by PJW who IS Israel-First, but what he says here is 100% true)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iERLyAxddVE
“I’m not at all sure that feminism has caused these demographic problems. I think you could reverse feminism altogether and we would still have low birthrates, because White men don’t want many children.”
It’s instinctive to want to reproduce. We in the West have been conditioned & subtly brainwashed not to. Interestingly, when new 3rd worlders arrive here, it’s been noted that their birthrates aren’t nearly as high as in their homelands. They’re immediately affected by the overall push of liberal priorities & consumerism, too.
“As I have pointed out elsewhere, Israel has a very healthy birthrate, and they manage this without excluding women from anything, even among highly-educated career women.”
Only Israel’s Orthodox community allows the country to have such high birthrates. Our self-sufficient American Amish communities are right on par with Israel’s Orthodox! And Amish aren’t dependent on govt handouts like Israeli Orthodox families are.
“I suppose if we’re all expected to have six kids,…”
Quality > quantity.
Good, truthful, and wise comment, but we won’t get back to genuinely traditional values (which are also highly racially preservationist ones) absent either a barbarous collapse of civilization (after which the proper relations of the sexes will naturally sort themselves out quickly), or a neo-fascist or Christian-theocratist revolution. Historically, peoples always understood both that young women are very valuable, and that their sexuality needs adult supervision and control. Law and social norms reflected this. The West has eliminated those laws and shattered those norms. How does the genie get re-bottled?
Start with no brainers like banning women from the military, police, and fire departments. Dismantle statutory feminism. Make it legal for employers to not hire women. It will rapidly get addictive and snowball from there. Return to sex-segregated institutions, which would guarantee some jobs for women, for instance teaching girls, running women-only gyms, clubs, businesses, etc.
“I actually managed to land one of these near-mythical creatures: a husband who supports me and our children financially, but treats me as an equal partner all the same.
I had no idea how strange this was until I started to talking to other women about their husbands. It’s so bad that I actually have a special, small subset of girlfriends I talk to about our husbands’ annoying habits. Yes, I’m serious. You can’t complain about your husband leaving his dirty clothes on the floor (right next to the hamper) to a girl whose husband carries on more or less openly with other women, stays out all night gambling or snorting meth, etc.
Now, the fact is, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that most men don’t deserve a SAHM wife,
?!
Holy smokes, Lexi.
Your “friends” sound very counter-productive. Raising kids is the most important job in the universe, & it’s very rewarding on a long-term level. A large part being a responsible parent is to role model for them what a healthy husband-wife relationship looks like, and how to problem-solve without fighting. As parents, it’s also our responsibility to teach our kids how to pick a good, quality spouse, with whom they can start a family of their own.
(In our first-world, highly-educated, courts & laws on women’s side country, modern women still choose to select the companionship of some low-character guys. Someone’s character can not be easily hidden for more than a year of dating. And you can expect that an ungrateful guy would behave accordingly, if you foolishly decided to marry one of them. Why do so many American women choose to do so? It almost sounds like too much freedom & not taking responsibility for one’s choices. Do we need marriages arranged by our elders for us, Lexi?
You sound like you have some time & energy for fighting. Please fight for your family, Lexi. Fight for the rights of your daughters against “trans-women” born males saying they are females who want to directly compete against them, and take advantage of them.
There are also legit fights to make certain that FGM doesn’t become as common as circumcisions within the U.S. My sister is a physician (& feminist) & I was showing her that in medical textbooks today, OBGYN diagrams are shown of womens sex organs *missing key parts* because some communities want to normalize Shria FGM practices within places like Minnesota.
Reduxx is a good resources for lots of the classroom trans-mania in U.S. & Europe/Canada that needs to be stopped today:
https://reduxx.info/austria-children-expelled-from-kindergarten-after-their-parents-objected-to-poster-depicting-naked-trans-identified-male-displaying-his-penis/
OBGYN diagrams are shown of womens sex organs *missing key parts* because some communities want to normalize Shria FGM practices within places like Minnesota.
Medical books contain diagrams of males with their sex organs missing a key part, too, but this has been normalized over a few decades in the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia and other English speaking areas.
Do something horrible long enough and (just about) everybody’s fine with it. First prize in this category probably goes to America’s overseas wars, none of which serve our interests.
Yes Stronza, & crazily, the widespread popularity of the Jew’s infant mutilation ritual of circumcision spread like w-i-l-d-f-i-r-e among American Gentiles. To their credit, Gentiles in Europe didn’t fall for this. And interestingly, the state which contains the highest percentage of circumcized American men is the ultra Jew packed state of…West Viriginia (?!) at 91%.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/circumcision-rates-by-state
I believe that the widespread uncritical acceptance of mutilation of childrens’ genitals really prepped America into not being able to automatically reject hormonal, & sometimes even surgical, sex-changes for our children.
Thanks! WV is not full of Jews; apparently they make up .17 per cent of that state’s population. Why the rate would be so high in WV I don’t know exactly, but white people make up 92 per cent of the population. (Oops, there’s yer answer – easily led by the nose.)
Rates of babycutting seem to have gone down over the years (if you have followed this, which I have), but you have to weigh that against the change in demographics, i.e., we are barely majority white in so many states anymore so I would guess it is the presence of Cubans, Hindus and Mexicans (and some other generally non-cutting ethnic groups) in certain states only which would make it look like (real) white people are smartening up as regards babytorture. But they are not. A falling world with Amerika going down first.
I believe that the widespread uncritical acceptance of mutilation of childrens’ genitals really prepped America into not being able to automatically reject hormonal, & sometimes even surgical, sex-changes for our children.
Bingo.
Why do so many American women choose to do so?
Here again, it’s a DIYD/DIYD situation. If you choose to stay single, that’s wrong. If you take what you can get, that’s wrong, too.
And no, you don’t know someone’s character after a year of dating. You don’t know what they’re made of until the first baby comes, and maybe not even then.
You have such a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome that you are actually admitting to the problems I referenced, only then you turn around and blame women, for some reason.
It almost sounds like too much freedom & not taking responsibility for one’s choices. Do we need marriages arranged by our elders for us, Lexi?
Why on Earth would you think they would do any better for us? Haven’t you heard of those Afghan girls setting themselves on fire because their parents married them off to some old creep who rapes them everyday?
We need our elders to enforce decent standards of conduct, though I know the manospherians would call that “the Matriarchy” or something absurd like that.
And no, you don’t know someone’s character after a year of dating. You don’t know what they’re made of until the first baby comes, and maybe not even then.
Bravo. No truer words. Wait til the baby shows up and then one or the other will find out right quick. That’s baseball! And the opportunity to grow up once and for all.
Lexi,
I happen to disagree that, “If you choose to stay single, that’s wrong.”
By all means, nobody should get married until s/he can be a good partner, in whatever that pair’s common goals are: rearing children, fighting our ”’government”’, or simply being a considerate helpful partner sharing a home or running a small business.
“And no, you don’t know someone’s character after a year of dating.”
One year is the absolute minimum amount of time. It simply takes too much effort to constantly hide lies, spinelessness, and lack of integrity. And bad habits *always* escalate. Observe how he treats others. Is he quick to anger? Does he hold grudges? And my personal favorite: Does he seem like a loyal guy? It’s so funny, thinking back on all this now– because I’ve been married forever, since my husband’s hair was black & our home neighborhood was White.
Many women (& men) make the mistake of ignoring some key red flags early on.
“You have such a bad case of Stockholm Syndrome that you are actually admitting to the problems I referenced, only then you turn around and blame women, for some reason.”
I have “Stockholm Syndrome”, Dr. Lexi? I would simply like to see more people take responsibility for their choices in life, both good & bad. Otherwise, we’re not getting any better, or working to improve anything.
Re: “Do we need marriages arranged by our elders for us, Lexi?” – Why on Earth would you think they would do any better for us?
Because life is complex, & we don’t usually have enough life experience & wisdom on our own at 22, to make the most important decision of our life, without some guidance from those who have been married 25-50 years themselves, & know what needs to be prioritized.
(Sorry Catholics, I don’t believe marital advise from unmarried priests counts. And even most marriage counselors have, themselves been divorced.)
“We need our elders to enforce decent standards of conduct, though I know the manospherians would call that “the Matriarchy” or something absurd like that.”
I think you’d be quite surprised, actually. Upholding morality has long-been a responsibility of traditional women, and because so many women have abdicated this civic and moral responsibility, men are completely exasperated at what modern women have allowed to transpire & consequently start voicing that perhaps it’s high time take drastic measures because so many of us have dropped the ball.
Lexi, please tell me why you care one iota about “the Manosphere” when you have simply 1 man, your children’s father, to take care of? I am rooting for you Lexi. Marriage & child rearing takes hard work, *especially* if you are intelligent & stubborn, & you might not always agree with your spouse on politics or religion– but you need to provide a stable & predictable home environment for your kids. Your children never asked to be in this world. They are 100% dependent on you. No nanny/pre-school could ever be sufficient to replace you & your husband in their lives. You only have them for 18 years each. Please don’t set yourself up for future regrets. They are #1 priority, and I know you’re not raising dolts. Have you looked into the school situation lately? EVEN IF your kids go to private school, or are home schooled, they’ll eventually need to know how to navigate adult life surrounded by so many unhinged people .
Kim: January 16, 2025 …As parents, it’s also our responsibility to teach our kids how to pick a good, quality spouse, with whom they can start a family of their own…
How true. Looking at comments under this article I can see that many of our young people have lost touch with what’s important in life. “Hooking up” in college today is apparrently only about sex for too many. Young Whites would do better to skip college and get on with finding an appropriate spouse/mate for life and raising the next generation
Lexi probably will not appreciate these two essays from my mentors, Ben Klassen and William Pierce, due to their dim views of Christianity, but you and others might:
Ben Klassen on Marriage | National Vanguard (nice photo there of Mr. and Mrs. Klassen)
Pierce asks, “As time goes on, it’s getting harder and harder to keep marriages together. So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along?” He gives his thoughts on why, here: Marriage and Survival | National Vanguard
I’m not a feminist, and I disagree with you often about key points, but I have always appreciated your attempts to counter the arguments made by the men here with regards to White gender relations. It’s unlikely that they get everything right all the time, and it’s nice to have someone around who is ballsy enough to go in and debate them. I admit that sometimes things they say feel off to me, but I don’t feel that I am smart enough, or well-read enough, to say anything worthwhile on the subject. But I’ll have a little go now. I find the theory of female hypergamy very interesting, and I certainly think it is true to some extent, but I’m not sure it is true for all women. Perhaps the tendency is normally distributed, for example. If hypergamy is inherent to womankind, then why, in this incredibly gynocentric society, do so many marriages seem to last? If it is true, then is it a bad thing? Is it possible that the population is being cleansed of weaker genes at the expense of diversity? The author of Imperium Press’s Substack proposed something similar, if I’m not misremembering. Some questions that I have. If we had a free academia, these ideas would be properly disseminated and debated, and we could get closer to finding out the truth.
I hope that you stick around and aren’t put off by White Nationalism. I believe you have said before, in pieces, you had 5 children in your 30s? If so, how did you manage with having them quite close in age? It’s a very impressive achievement.
I find the theory of female hypergamy very interesting, and I certainly think it is true to some extent, but I’m not sure it is true for all women.
There is certainly some truth in it. The chief problem, as I see it, is that the term is defined, at least in the DR, precisely to pathologize what is normal and even virtuous: a preference for indicia of intelligence, creativity, and drive (wealth and prestige) in addition to mere physical characteristics. It is simply taken as axiomatic that whatever men do is right, and whatever women do is wrong.
The most pathetic hair-splitting I have ever heard on the subject is this. When men hold out for hottest chick they can get, they’re “optimizing,” but that’s not “hypergamy,” you see, because “optimizing” and “hypergamy” are two entirely different things. This is nothing but arbitrary pilpul.
More importantly, there is one fundamental problem underlying the rest. The reason the lies continue is that there is a determination to keep lying, and explain away any failed predictions, because the WN movement has been completely captured by these manisphere people.
Other ethnic advocacy movements don’t attack their own women like this. This only happens among White advocates, so called. The reason is that White men don’t care one iota for their race. They only care about their wallets and their genital organs. I call it the BQ, the billionaire question. Jewish billionaires support their own people. Ours don’t. That leaves us in a ghetto. Unable to recruit normal people, they therefore have to pander to the already-alienated misfit fake incels who won’t join a club that will have them as a member.
I appreciate your kind words about my posts here, but there is really no point in my continuing. Greg is a good and intellectually honest person, but he does have to eat after all, and he has said before that this SUIP misogynist hate screed is his best-selling book. He really can’t afford to change course on this issue, even if he sees the light. That being the case, nothing will ever change.
Well, one thing might change. I can actually foresee the possibility of a reversal of feminism, precisely to distract White men from our collective racial peril and to pacify them, possibly finishing off the job of White genocide with access to foreign women. Or maybe they’ll just continue to grind White men down, but make sure they have an equally miserable, desperate White woman as sex slave/punching bag to take out their frustrations on. We’ll be back to the good old days from a Somerset Maugham novel. If Devlin didn’t exist, the Jews would have to invent him.
“Men hold out for the hottest chick they can get.” Well, sure, but, at least for most of us ordinary guys, she’s the first one who will have us.
Your comments intrigue me because I don’t see feminism and anti-Semitism combined very often.
I don’t think we’ve ruined anything. Rather, I suspect that what damage has been done has to do with the fact that White men handed our society over to our fellow White people after WWII.
Jewish influence in the postwar era has caused two major changes: the erosion of White sovereignty through civil rights and non-White immigration, and second wave feminism/the sexual revolution. Presumably you believe the former was an act of malice. Do you believe the latter was an act of altruism from Jews toward White women and White society at large, without any ulterior motives?
If Devlin didn’t exist, the Jews would have to invent him.
I can understand how a White woman would believe it’s in her individual interest to live in a society that is both White and promotes feminist social policy. What I don’t understand is how you can situate it in an anti-Semitic framework when the second wave feminism you praise was kicked off by a woman named Betty Friedan.
What I don’t understand is how you can situate it in an anti-Semitic framework when the second wave feminism you praise was kicked off by a woman named Betty Friedan.
This is what is called the genetic fallacy: the idea that the origin of a thing determines its merit. So even if feminism is of Jewish origin, it has to be evaluated on its own merits. Otherwise, Ill have to blow the whistle on you for another foul: the part-to-whole fallacy. Some kinds of egalitarianism (such as race denialism) are bad, therefore all forms of egalitarianism (such as feminism) are bad.
All that said, feminism is not of Jewish origin. Feminism is very, very old. It goes all the way back to Pythagoras in the West, The Buddha in Asia, and the Hebrew prophets in the Middle East. Second Wave Feminism, as you call it, is arguably of Jewish origin, but there I think you make the mistake of believing that one person can drive history (Great Woman Theory of History).
My view is that feminism was going to happen anyway, and would have happened with or without Betty Friedan. That said, our Fellow White People like to get out in front of things. The Jewish New Left controls every Leftist constituency: environmentalism, the labor movement, the women’s movement, the anti-war movement, etc. This control allows them to ensure that these movements never threaten Jewish interests in multiculturalism for the Diaspora and nationalism for Jews.
Second Wave feminism was simply a logical development of a society with low infant mortality rates. If almost all of your children survive, you don’t need a high birthrate, and indeed a high birthrate is unsustainable. People demand, and get birth control, and birthrates fall. This demographic development frees up massive labor power that many men fear and attempt to control for various reasons, while women naturally chafe at this.
The question then becomes what to do with that labor power? Should women stay at home or not? Women disagreed about this, and Phyllis Schlaffly actually managed to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, because she was worried that we would lose our right to have our own bathrooms. People laughed at her. More importantly, she feared we would lose our rights to alimony and child support. We are now losing both of those things, and the manosphere wants to take away our rights in the workplace and our right to Equal Protection of the Law as well, without bothering to give us back the other rights. That is, they want to go back to the old ways, but only the bits that were good for men, not the bits that were good for women.
I don’t much care for or about Betty Friedan. I don’t agree with her that domestic life is dreary. For me, the problem with the exclusion of women from the workforce is not that there is no fulfillment to be found outside the paid workforce, but rather that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If a woman marries and has a family, she is basically a prisoner if she has no independent source of income or supportive relatives. That is true even today. If you don’t believe me, go ask a police officer. When women call the police on their husbands for domestic violence, they very often refuse to cooperate in any prosecution of him. Despicable manosphere creeps will tell you that this is because women are masochists who enjoy being knocked around, because they always prefer whatever explanation justifies their maltreatment of women. The truth is that, without their husband, they can’t pay the mortgage or the rent or whatever.
There are charities that exist for the sole purpose of helping people get out of abusive cults, because without support it is very difficult to manage on your own. People stay, even when a cult leader beats them, locks them in dark rooms, deprives them of food, etc., just because they don’t have anywhere else to go.
Nowadays, a woman can get a divorce, but there are attempts underway to make this very difficult for women. They want presumptive joint custody, which will remove any rationale for awarding the home to the mother. The father will get the house, and the mother will not be able to provide housing for the children even on a part-time basis, so for homemakers “presumptive joint custody” means “primary custody to the father.” As a result, she will be completely powerless. Her husband will be able to openly cheat on her and she won’t be able to do anything, or even threaten to do anything, about it unless she wants her husband’s mistress to move into her house and spend more time with her children than she does. You might as well legalize wife-beating at once.
How any decent person could possibly support this is beyond me. I suppose they just tell themselves that it wasn’t so bad and mean ol’ man-hating feminists just made up stories about innocent men who dindu nuffin. Or that women file for divorce for no reason, because they think they can get a better man than they got when they were 10 years younger or whatever nonsense they tell themselves.
Anyway, you said you can see how I would support feminism and WN, both being in my individual interest. I would submit that it is more than that. Oppression of women can and does cause all kinds of perversion ad distortion of the social order all over the world. We aren’t really allowed to talk about it much, because if we did, a Gold medal in the Oppression Olympics wouldn’t be anywhere near good enough. Diamond encrusted Rhodium would be more like it. There are 200,000,000 females missing from the planet today. By my calculations, that is 194,000,000 more than 6,000,000.
So what happened to them? Selective abortion, infanticide, and neglect. When you devalue women in a densely populated world with no open frontier, parents are going to want sons. As you might imagine, this is not working out very well for men in countries with these massive gender imbalances. It’s not working out very well for women, either. Parents in Nepal, the birthplace of the Buddha, can’t even let their little girls go out and ride their bikes for fear they’ll be taken and sold into a brothel in India. It’s like Victorian England, where you could buy a 12 year old girl’s virginity, only its happening today.
https://youtu.be/qeSYN2c8f_A?si=zEGdPrHa7J2T85VO
Regarding hypergamy, yes there are men who “trade” up. But let’s look at large numbers and social trends. In fact, let’s look at the OKCupid poll.
There’s a basic asymmetry in courtship: men offer, women choose. There’s another basic asymmetry: women hit the fertility and attractiveness “wall” before men.
Everyone wants the best, but since we’re not all the best, most people have to settle for the good enough. For society to function, both men and women need to settle, and women need to settle sooner.
How is that working out today? Not well.
Men, who rate half of women below average and half of them above, are better able to settle than women, who rate 80% of men below average. This means that under present feminist conditions, men will offer and settle just as much as before, but women will decline more and settle less, looking for better and better catches by their skewed criteria, and the search will continue long past the point of diminishing returns. That’s the hypergamy problem right there.
Men are better at settling than women, and society will not survive without addressing this imbalance.
If this is the case, the last thing a society needs to do is stoke female narcissism and increase female economic independence. That means shutting down feminism and scaling back female economic and educational opportunities.
You can talk all you want about “hating women” and “blaming women” and “attacking women,” and there definitely are people who fit that description. But it really is a deflection, since it doesn’t change the fact that women today have more power, money, and self-esteem than is healthy for women or society as a whole.
White advocates are absolutely right to talk about these issues, since we are not going to restore a healthy white society without addressing these problems.
You’ve added a lot over the years, but “If Devlin didn’t exist, the Jews would have to invent him” is just despicable. Frankly, I am glad you are retiring from this conversation.
Yes. This is about the big numbers, not that we all know some occasional exceptions. Men and women each have their own hierarchy of what is important, and it reshuffles partially with age. With all the complex issues here, I think one thing remains largely undiscussed in polite society. Despite the rise of feminism and prestige jobs for women, they still want a man of greater (or sometimes equal) prestige and income. There are exceptions, but this continues to be a major issue. In decades past, men would be okay paired with a woman of lower education. Women have not accepted flipping this script with their ascent. It it accentuating a caste-type system in the West for the ones who find a mate. But many delay finding a mate (decreasing years of fertility) or don’t find one at all.
Replying here because I’m unable to reply to your response to me.
That is, they want to go back to the old ways, but only the bits that were good for men, not the bits that were good for women.
You spend a lot of time talking about how bad the 1950s were and how returning to anything resembling that would be abhorrent.
I remember many Breadtubers a few years ago would always talk about how unhappy SAHMs in the 1950s were, how they were all so miserable they were self-medicating. Of course, anyone can look at rates of depression and SSRI use among women and see they have been skyrocketing in the past few decades. So in order for this notion that anytime before 1970 was hell for women to be true, the depression rate among women in the 1950s would have had to been extremely high, then completely plummeted in the following decades only to begin to rise again in the last few decades. This does not seem plausible to me.
Of course, I’m sure some women were in bad marriages, but on the whole I find it very plausible that not only men, but women as well were happier. Many feminists try to wrestle with this female happiness paradox, and usually say it’s because there are still too many male CEOs their husbands don’t do enough chores around the house. Again, this does not pass the smell test. The statistics are moving in the wrong direction altogether.
We aren’t really allowed to talk about it much, because if we did, a Gold medal in the Oppression Olympics wouldn’t be anywhere near good enough. Diamond encrusted Rhodium would be more like it. There are 200,000,000 females missing from the planet today.
Since when are you not allowed to talk about this? There’s International Women’s Day, Malala Yousafzai is a household name in the West, one of the stated goals of George W. Bush’s Middle Eastern regime change was to promote women’s education. Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign was largely focused around women losing their “reproductive rights”.
Hell, even someone that normies would consider extremely far-right, Tommy Robinson, literally said he would support bringing every last Saudi woman into the UK because their country is too sexist. “We can’t let Muslims into Europe because they’re against women’s rights” was a common refrain from populist right-wing types during the counter-jihad era. I’m genuinely confused who you feel is preventing you from discussing this issue.
So what happened to them? Selective abortion, infanticide, and neglect…Parents in Nepal, the birthplace of the Buddha, can’t even let their little girls go out and ride their bikes for fear they’ll be taken and sold into a brothel in India.
Look, I’m a White Nationalist, I don’t really care what is going on with brown women OR brown men in their own countries. I mean, I wish them well, but it’s not my main concern. You’re doing the same thing anti-racist feminists do, where they point out examples of horrific offenses in non-White countries but then remove the racial aspect and say it’s just about “men”. You’ve implied that White men are dooming WN by caring more about their sex than their race, but I’m wondering if this is projection as it seems to me you are concerned with the welfare of non-White women quite a bit.
Moreover, are you implying F. Roger Devlin or anyone saying hypergamy is a problem are somehow implicitly supporting sex-selective abortions? Beyond this beyond logically incoherent, it just seems you’re taking social practices from Asia and fear mongering that if we undo feminism, Whites will adopt these practices. I mean, do you think if anti-feminists take control of the State we’re going to give every woman a traditional Chinese foot binding too?
Maybe men are, deep down, contemptuous of women and think they can get away with bad behavior because when push comes to shove, the reality is that we need them more than they need us and they know it.
To stay alive, one day after another, and reasonably comfy, we need men to do the heavy lifting. Let feminists prove how equal they are by pooling their money, buying a big plot of land with no human-made accoutrements on it, and living there, and let’s see how long they last. When our ancestors arrived here, there was nothing but the natural world, and it was the men who began the work of building a civilization. The women completed the job and that was hard work as well. But it wasn’t shiploads of women, all by themselves, who started America.
A commenter here said, “Apparently, we’re now talking about excluding women wholesale from entire lines of work to solve the fake incel problem, and not because we can’t compete with men, but precisely because we can”
What lines of work? Yes, women can go to the forest to obtain firewood (I’ve done my share) – using a chain saw built by men; with the wood being burned in a stove invented and constructed by males (white, usually); made from metal/ore mined by them; and, finally, installed by men, who arrive in vehicles built by men powered by gasoline and oil obtained by men. And then there’s the occasional maintenance and repairs; I’ve never had a woman coming to the house to do this. Any administration work done by women in these businesses could also be done by males, but females can’t do the hard part. This is only one small example.
I do think men tend to be flawed, character-wise (usually sexual matters) no matter the race or ethnic group. But we women are pretty much helpless in the face of the natural world. It’s a trade-off. You can leave your ungrateful fool of a husband if you wish and support yourself in a system where your comforts were not built by women. Just own up to that, you blind feminists.
How about we start by not having women in the military, police department, and fire department.
I know I’m “preaching to the choir” by responding to you, but I add this simply for any unaware feminist lurkers:
“Los Angeles Fire Department Assistant Chief Kristine Larson [who’s a proud female, homosexual, African-American] says when people’s houses are burning down, they want a firefighter to show up who looks like them. Hot take: People just want someone to show up who will stop their house from burning down,” said Collin Rugg in an X post containing the infamous video.
In a video defending the department’s DEI hiring practices, Deputy Chief Kristine Larson — who heads the Equity and Human Resources Bureau — [Salary: $399,000] addressed accusations that female firefighters aren’t strong enough to carry a man out of a burning building. Her response: “He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.”
https://nypost.com/2025/01/12/us-news/lafds-diversity-chief-sparks-fury-for-defending-dei-by-blaming-the-victim/
The other 2 current Los Angeles female, homosexual, fire chiefs, (all 3 of them named Kristin) include: Kristina Crowley – First LGBTQ Fire Chief LAFD. [Salary: $439,722], and Kristina Kepner – First Lesbian Assistant Chief LAFD. [Salary: $264,468]
One estimate of the damage and economic loss already caused by the fires is $135-$150 Billion.
Pilots? And I don’t mean diamond and silk. Nothing against Amelia but we’re still waiting to hear back from her and nobody, no matter how ideologically crack-brained, would gamble their lives on they/them landing a Sully in the Hudson.
“Civilized society must be a man’s world because the woman’s world is the ghetto.” ~Dr. Daniel Amneus
If each could reproduce without the need for the other, putting aside the guys as better fighters against enemy threats, men would last a hell of alot longer since loneliness does crippling damage to women who are more extroverted and better ‘people-persons’ more so then men. Even militant homosexuals are more of a guy thing where women lean more straight but circumstantially open to a troika.
Men become utterly miserable and demotivated from being womanless. It’s one of the reasons why ten million working-age men have voluntarily checked out of employment.
Dr. William Pierce wrote that nothing makes a man angrier than lack of a woman. And I agree.
The saying “tall dark and handsome” was created by antiwhites to breed blond men out of the gene pool, and favour those who have more middle eastern admixture than the average White man.
It comes from the movie She Done Him Wrong (1933): “tall . . . dark . . . kinda handsome.” It is Mae West’s description of Cary Grant.
Think about why guys like Cary Grant and Humphrey Bogart were always cast as sex symbols, when Germany and even the Soviet Union, and many other nations, would use blonde haired men for that.
Another wise article by Dr. Devlin, one of the Dissident Right’s best public intellectuals.
I really wish I’d had his Sexual Utopia in Power when I was young guy in the 1980s-90s. It would have helped a lot (as, esp in the 80s, I would have so benefitted from CC, or American Renaissance, or even just knowing about Instauration {discovered by me in the late 80s} to help enlighten me about racial realities).
I have generally been as clueless about women as the next white guy. That admitted, however, I did early on clue into something that is at least implied by Devlin’s oeuvre on our sexual dystopia: that women are in no way more ethical than men when it comes to sexual relations. I used to mock those Christians (yes, including those at Chronicles, to which I’ve subscribed since the late 80s) who would get into their high dudgeon over “male Lotharios” using the godless Sexual Revolution to satisfy their presumably pagan lusts. No, I used to say (out of experience, not book learning), it’s women who, apart from tragic rape victims (who, if white, had usually been victimized by nonwhite predators, most alleged white rapists belonging to the more evidentially problematic “date rapist” category), are responsible for sexual relations (as they were also the driving force of the Sexual Revolution itself, even if a small number of alpha-male Casanovas were able to benefit from it).
Complicating all the 400-eggs biology talk, actual women in the world can also be quite promiscuous themselves. I’ve done no empirical research on this, but I suspect that post-Sexual Revolutionary women are, on average, more promiscuous than their male counterparts, even if men might be more innately disposed to promiscuity: women who lean towards promiscuity – I know at least one woman who was like this 20 years ago – simply have so much more ability to satisfy their desires than do all but the most famously attractive “Chads”.
Men seducing women who are not initially attracted to them (men who are not “pushing on an open door”) is also extremely rare in the real world. I was socially active in the 80s-00s, and I only know of two instances of guys who actually “won the hearts” of women who hadn’t made the first move: a handsome friend who set out to bed a hot mutual acquaintance, and did so (and never let his pals hear the end of it); and a short, ugly ethnic dude {half-white, half-Chinese} whose ex-gf told me that she ended up dating him, despite her initial lack of attraction, because “he wouldn’t leave me alone, and I started feeling sorry for him” (that’s what she said, perhaps complicating the generally correct image of women as brutal sexual mercenaries).
I was never any kind of Chad McDashly, but in my prime I was at least somewhat desirable, being 6’4″, a bit on the heavier-boned side, a moderate weightlifter, an Ivy League grad, smart, well-spoken, not weird, tatted up, nerdy, fruity, etc. I had a certain amount of regular female interest. And yet, I can honestly say that I never dated any woman who had not made the first move, somehow either directly confronting me (like the girl who crawled into my bed unbidden freshman year {and that was still the 70s}, or, over a quarter century later, the Russian immigrant woman who saw me eating alone at a birthday party, and literally came over to me and asked if I’d like to sit with her), or else positioning herself in a way so she could be friendly to me (like the woman who volunteered to do a boring task with me at work).
The one piece of advice I have for my younger white brothers (besides getting a strong prenup if you are bringing a decent level of assets into any eventual marriage) is that, for almost all of you except the most “Chaddish” of McDashlys, it’s just a positioning and numbers game – and the women have all the sexual marketplace power. Indeed, from everything I’ve heard about the younger generation, today’s white women, at least among the coastal elite professional classes (I have no experience with white rural or Bible Belt American females), are as unseduceable as in medieval times (unless you are a Brad Pitt super-Chad, in which case you get to exit the fiefdom and enter the Playboy Mansion). You need to find that needle-in-the-haystack girl who, for whatever genetico-cultural-mental reasons, finds YOU attractive (enough).
Sadly for those of us who are intellectual introverts, it means you have to “get out there”, a lot. By “there” I mean both online (though I’ve never actually done online dating, but these days it seems like spreading one’s geographical net is nearly a requirement), and in the physical world. Online, I would be fairly honest in your profile (assuming you want a quality long term relationship), but otherwise just let the women (if any) contact you (although I do know one couple who met online after my pal initiated the contact with his future spouse). I have a Don Juan buddy who has dated hundreds of women in his life (been married only once), and even he, who is/was probably better looking and wealthier than you (you should see the size of the family ski estate at Sugar Bowl), has had to send out dozens to hundreds of online dating messages (or is it “likes”?) in order to find a new girlfriend. He has actually gotten more gfs from his real life socializing than from online.
My point is that, even for a proven Chad (albeit now an aging one), online is still a massive numbers game.
WRT the physical world, bars and clubs are usually not very good for serious guys wanting to find quality mates. Indeed, most women going out clubbing (at least in my day; not sure now) are not actually looking to sleep with someone. Half their fun is just dressing sexy, gossiping with their friends, and getting male attention. Of course, dimly they hope to meet The One, but they don’t (didn’t?) consider the night a failure if all they did was have fun with their girls (as opposed to so many of us guys, for whom going home alone after a “hard night out” always elicited somewhat shameful feelings).
I think for young WNs doing things is the likeliest way to find someone of quality (unless those European/prowhite dating sites are valuable; but there I’d bet the numbers are hugely stacked against the men). If you’re like me and mostly just want to use your free time to read, well, that’s not good for dating success. I once spent a few years in an after-work volleyball league. I actually liked v-ball, and the fact that the league attracted a lot of young women was obviously a huge positive. I only ever got a few numbers, and one gf from it (which didn’t last that long, either), however, but at least I had a lot of fun with several pals.
You have to put yourself out there, especially in activities you like (which can often sustain a long term relationship, too); present the best of yourself that you can; be “aggressively friendly” (remember your goal is picking up women, not socializing) but not creepy when in mixed company; and be prepared for a lot of rejection and never take any of it personally (easier said than done, but a necessity). I have a handsome and exceptionally wealthy pal with a weak, sensitive character who literally never married because any rejection would depress him for months; eventually, he wouldn’t go out simply because he couldn’t handle rejection, even though I guarantee that even Supreme Chad Brad Pitt got rejected at least once in his pre-fame life. That’s just the nature of male/female interaction.
I’ll ask you the same question I ask other older men concerned about the white race who state their previous “success” with women (many of them): why did you not marry and have children and instead choose to be “boyfriend and girlfriend” and in “relationships”?
I actually believe the constructs of “dating” (as practiced post Sexual Revolution), “boyfriend and girlfriend” (for those past 22 years old), “relationships” (clown marriages), and “cohabitation” (sex and a maid with no commitment by men) will one day need to be abolished! To have young women jammed up in these stupid situations during their most beautiful and fertile years is a highly destructive burden on society and a race.
Why did I never marry? Hmmm…
Short answer: I set my standards too high and never met anyone I wanted to marry who also wanted to marry me.
Long answer: Well, first, I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I was ever a super-success with females. I was not at all – indeed, I was known “back in the day” for being a guy who could get a lot of “digits” (is that term still used?) and first dates, but not that many second dates, let alone “action” and girlfriends. I noticed the obvious hypergamy phenomenon decades before that term came into serious vogue. In the 80s-90s, lots of ugly guys had cute GFs, but they usually also had a lot of “cake” (or looked like they did – how easy it used to be to fool women on that score! I have two close long term female friends, a few years younger than I am and both huge “players” in their day, and I recall one of them once lamenting to me, “But I thought he had money!”
And I recall this time, decades ago, when a wealthy pal lent me his 700-series BMW – I think my car needed sudden repairs; he had several cars; and I had a hot date – and my date’s eyes just lit up when she got into my car: “OMG, is this yours?! Niiiice!”… if Dr. Devlin thinks women are not literally aroused by wealth – infinitely more so than men are – then he needs to get out or research more).
I know exactly the kind of men who are Lotharios (or were – I’m 63, and less sure of how it is for the seemingly more sexless younger folks; I can only speak to my particular, and perhaps somewhat time-bound, experiences), and I do not fit that profile. Although … my situation was always weird, so take or leave what I say with whatever grains of salt you feel appropriate (for all you know, I could be a college twerp, or maybe a toothless 90 year old hillbilly). Try not to laugh (at me or my “theory”).
I believe there is something to the idea of mammalian sexual imprinting applied to humans; that is, as I’m speaking here (nb: I’m neither a scientist, nor an intellectual like Devlin or others who have delved into these matters systematically), that youthful sexual experiences, or maybe just experiences with the opposite sex with a small degree of romance in them, can influence one’s adult sexual trajectory (which is why my sympathies and rage go out to all youthful sexual assault victims – especially those English girls enslaved and continuously gang-raped by Paki filth; every time I think of what I’ve read over the last few weeks about those horrific events, and especially the mistreatment of the girls by the cowardly white police-males more worried about not offending precious Muslim sensitivities than protecting the innocence of the most vulnerable of their own fucking people, I almost start foaming at the mouth with anger … man, don’t get me started …). I know that sounds “Lamarckian”, and I am most certainly a Darwinian, yet I suspect there is quite a bit we simply do not know about the origins of sexual identity or preferences.
Something I used to wonder about as far back as high school was how guys could hook up with seriously ugly women. Absolutely by the late 70s I was wondering how they could, um, perform. I recall in ’85 having this woman in a bar telling me all the filthy things she wanted to do to me – and she kept licking my ear as I was listening to her (the club was crowded, and the music loud) – and yet I was not attracted to her (I was being a very loyal wingman to a buddy who was super-keen for her “bestie”, so I pretended to be interested in “the friend”).
I believe I was “imprinted” to like pretty girls, and in particular, to be unattracted to ugly ones. Every man likes female beauty, of course, but a lot also seem to like, or not to mind, the lack of beauty.
Starting at 12, then 13, 16 and 17, I had a succession of super-cute girlfriends, all of whom basically fell into my lap. I did nothing to try to win their affections (I wouldn’t have known how anyway; indeed, I grew up having no idea that men pursued women, other than that “the boy usually asks the girl out on a date”). They all made the first moves.
This continued in college, although in the Ivy League – even back then {I believe it’s worse in every way today} – while there was a lot of “sex positive talk”, there really wasn’t that much actual hooking up happening, at least at my school. It was generally considered very difficult to get a real GF, even though everyone was “liberated” in how they presented and thought of themselves. At one point in the early 80s, there was even a school paper article lamenting the state of [lack of] romance on campus. Of course, no one, and I do mean no one, at least out loud, stated the obvious: feminism, which was a bigger “ism” on my campus in the early 80s than “multiculturalism”, though I’d already heard that latter term prior to graduating in ’83, had ruined dating; put another way, you could be as promiscuous as you wanted to be, but there wasn’t all that much real promiscuity, especially after AIDS – and the interminable discussions about it – popped up on the radar late in my junior year.
I did alright, not great, in college (romantically); there were certainly long “dry spells” (“I’m in the desert, man” “I know, dude, bone-freakin’-dry ’round here” etc). Smart women are harder to seduce than dumb ones, and they seem to make fewer moves (at least towards me). Grad school was pretty much the same, or worse. Most of my classmates were males; the females were not pretty, and were very liberal and b—–. Not my types.
Anyway, my longwinded answer comes down to this: I wanted to marry and have a nice white family. But I also wanted a hot wife (trans: acceptable looking, which for me based on my early sexual imprinting, meant “better than average”, and good in bed – and by no means is every woman good in bed … I can tell stories … about the hottie who just lay there {“are you Ok? are you into this?”} … about the one for whom no position was right {“like this” “there, no there, I said THERE” … about the one who kept biting me on the lip, then the cheek, then the shoulder – I mean really painfully biting {“stop it, dammit, I’m outta here”} … etc). And I wanted a smart wife, someone with whom I could hold a decent conversation. Worst of all, I wanted a conservative wife, and the right kind – the nationalist kind. And I didn’t like women who were improvident with money (note for young guys: women who are reckless or spendthrifty with their own cash will be even more so with yours – and likely won’t change much after marriage).
Good luck, buddy! No one told me that such a woman either does not exist, or is rarer than a Bigfoot sighting. Certainly, there will be no such sightings in the urban world in which I spent my adult life: LA, NYC, DC, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Probably the worst places for me to find what I wanted.
But I kept thinking foolishly that I would find such a woman. After all – and this was my own very bad luck – my mother was like that (well, not sure about the bed part). Valedictorian of her large and all-white high school class; honors graduate in philosophy from one of the world’s best universities (back when they still had an honors track, and not many women in her program); very pretty blonde (not a movie star, but lovely, and I have pics of her from the 50s and 60s); and ultra-conservative. A little bit on the bossy and know-it-all sides, but nobody’s perfect.
Why couldn’t I find a woman like my superior, pre-feminist mother? Well I didn’t, but I kept on hoping and looking – until I one day looked in the mirror and realized that I was now overweight, balding, and decidedly middle-aged (and that most of my friends were married with children).
Basically, like a lot of foolish men with inflated self-conceptions, I dated any pretty girl I could get while always assuming that someone better was out there just waiting for me to discover her. I saw myself in the dating market exactly as I had (correctly) seen myself in the collage application competition: as someone who was not top of the heap, but was good enough to compete for a top place.
In high school, I knew I could get into one of the elite colleges, but also, that I was no shoo-in. So I initially got apps from every top school, not only Stanford and Harvard, but Wesleyan and Haverford and Rice, etc. My intention had been to apply to the twenty best schools if necessary, just to ensure that I got into at least one (I’d already gotten accepted at arguably the best state university in the nation in the summer prior to senior year based on SAT scores alone – yep, back in those days, if you exceeded a certain SAT threshold, you garnered automatic admission even if not a resident of that state; a practice discontinued over 35 years ago, or so I was told – so that became my “safety” school). However, I also applied Early Action to one of the Ivies, and had my admissions letter from them when I arrived home for Christmas (I went to a foreign boarding school). So I only further applied to the “tippy-top” places (except Harvard, where a classmate of mine had already been accepted – and Harvard had a kind of “tradition” of never accepting more than one student from my school per graduating class – so I knew they wouldn’t also accept me).
I sort of took the same approach towards “settling down”. I wanted to, and I would have worked more assiduously and presumably accomplished so much more in life if I’d had a family to support, instead of always only myself (which enabled me to be a slacker, a partier, a volleyballer and skier, a pursuer of ideological entrepreneurship which failed, a 10k+ internet commenter, a reader of a dozen rightwing periodicals, and so on). But I always thought someone better was around the corner – until it became too late for me to raise kids (and later, to have any kind of hot wife at all).
My advice to younger men: don’t let the years pile up until they crush you. And be a little bit as women used to be, pre-feminism (and as some still are, of course): think of yourselves as also having “biological clocks”, and treat finding a quality GF as a necessary second job. You can’t expect serendipity: very few future wives fall into men’s laps. Unless you get super-lucky and find a great gal right away (which is almost like winning the lottery; but I do have a buddy who is still married to the girl he started dating freshman year of college over 45 years ago, so it’s possible), you have to make it a goal to find a wife by, say, 35. And then you must put in the work. Dating is not for the faint of heart, but there is no other way, and the potential rewards make the hardship worthwhile.
Thanks for the detailed response.
Thanks for that most interesting mini-autobiography, m’Lord. If you don’t mind my asking, what is your situation today? On the lookout for a Nurse with a Purse, perchance? For those unfamiliar with that term, it refers to an older single woman (middle aged+) who’ll buy her own beer and take care of your infirmities, too, as you age.
“Nurse with a Purse” – never heard it, but love it!
Yes, I do intend to get back “out there” after a lengthy dry spell (I’ve done no dating since pre-Covid, for many reasons), and that is more or less what I’m looking for. A woman in her 50s who is ethical, average looking (I’ve never dated less than average), healthy, financially responsible, emotionally stable and low-drama (all things I am, and many people are not). My focus is mainly on mental and moral compatibility. I can’t spend my last years with, say, the pretty moron I dated in the mid-90s. And I can’t stand progressives (anyone who voted for Kamala is either too leftist or too stupid for me).
I’m 63, never married, no kids, no siblings, alone in the world (my parents are both dead; I was a good son until their ends). I own my home, which is in a very expensive area, though it’s just an average house. When I retire, I will move to a very white Red State (as much as possible, anyway), assuming I don’t move near cousins in the Midwest (unlikely due to winters) or Southeast. I expect to purchase a nicer place with a straight swap (I don’t want a new mortgage).
I don’t need financial help from any woman, though pooling resources certainly raises the joint standard of living (two can live under my roof as easily as I do). I want someone who has an understanding of mutual aid, and that life gets harder with age – and it will get even more so in tandem with this nation’s guaranteed future decline (I was delighted Trump won again, but his periods in office are blips in an otherwise relentlessly negative trend line).
If the Ethnostate arises at all (and I’m slightly optimistic for the very long term), it will be either when I’m exceedingly old, or more likely, long after I’m gone, and the country has passed through hell. The next few decades will be bad, and I want a female partner who grasps this fact, and wishes to be with me in strategizing, preparing for, and navigating what is coming, all the while enjoying whatever good times we can secure in the remainder of our lives.
Thanks for filling in your life story; I found it quite interesting, needless to say. I still don’t understand why you want a woman, though, at this relatively late stage, or are we supposed to read between the lines.
About this: I own my home, which is in a very expensive area, though it’s just an average house.
I read, decades ago, a piece of advice: If you want to be a “success” [whatever that is], always maintain a good address even if you have to live in the attic”. Smart boy, you are. 🙂
When I was only 18 and had to live in a rooming house, no choices available, it was at the very edge of the richest part of town and considered to be part of it. A “good” address. Let’s make it short: you would not want to raise chickens in the 3rd floor attic room; I don’t have the literary skills to describe it adequately. How about a 12″ X 12″ window, for just one thing.
I think it’s really true today that most people are not very attractive to the other sex. Men have a much stronger sex drive, the sexual act is a biological need for them, so they are much more likely to settle for a less attractive partner. Women find most men ugly and make up a thousand terms to be willing to accept someone at all. Then, for a time, they become convinced that the partner in question suits them. But the effect soon wears off and the ordinary man becomes a liability. I think the problem is getting worse. There is a lack of motivation both to enter into relationships in the first place, and especially on the part of women to stay in them: for most women, a man was valuable only because they wanted to have a wedding and children, and after 5 years, most men thus become superfluous. That is why people are so miserable.
Yes. Refer to Taken into Custody by Dr. Stephen Baskerville, The Case for Father Custody by Dr. Daniel Amneus, and “Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers” (published on Counter Currents) by F. Roger Devlin.
Kim: January 16, 2025 …As parents, it’s also our responsibility to teach our kids how to pick a good, quality spouse, with whom they can start a family of their own…
—
How true. Looking at comments under this article I can see that many of our young people have lost touch with what’s important in life. “Hooking up” in college today is apparrently only about casual sex for too many. Young Whites would do better to skip college and get on with finding an appropriate spouse/mate for life and raising the next generation
Lexi probably will not appreciate these two essays from my mentors, Ben Klassen and William Pierce, due to their dim views of Christianity, but you and others might:
Ben Klassen on Marriage | National Vanguard (nice photo there of Mr. and Mrs. Klassen)
Pierce asks, “As time goes on, it’s getting harder and harder to keep marriages together. So, what are the reasons for this? Why are men and women having a harder time getting along?” He gives his thoughts on why, here: Marriage and Survival | National Vanguard
Mr. Williams, I just read both those essays, & really admire both these men politically, but not religiously, and especially not as religious leaders. Somehow, Klassen’s first 4 paragraphs were starting to turn me against nature (?!). I’m certain that this is the exact opposite of what he wanted.
Some of us like to relax & unwind in nature, temporarily freeing ourselves from all the rules and regulations for proper daily living. So, to read about Nature dictating Nature Laws to which we must be deliberately adhering nonstop, is a bit of a kill-joy.
Klassen had just 1 child with his wife, and WLP had 2 between all 5 of his wives. I do understand that high profile dissidents have challenges to their peaceful family life that most others don’t, but I believe there are better role models for holding a marriage together, and having large White families.
Same goes for Madison Grant, who had zero children.
Didn’t David 14 Words Lane have zero children?
My take on hypergamy is that a very modest amount of it isn’t so bad. In fact, it’s sort of positive eugenics. (If the least promising 5-10% of society doesn’t breed, so much the better.) Arranged marriages began going out of style during the Renaissance. Archeologists have noted that harsh facial features are less common than they were during the Middle Ages. Put another way, this means that in just a few centuries, the White race became the most attractive in the world. Surely we also selected out a lot of spiteful mutants, morons, etc.
Unfortunately, quality started dropping in modern times. There are various selection pressures working against fertility for high-IQ couples. Women were told they should become captains of industry, and those who choose motherhood are traitors to their sex. (Thanks, Betty Friedan! If only they’d asked us, we could’ve clued them in that most men don’t get highly rewarding jobs.) Another part of it is the cost of living, especially since someone with the skills to work a well-paying white collar job usually must live in overpriced suburbs to escape the inner city. Bourgeois affluenza can be another factor delaying family formation. Maybe they’re 38 before the biological clock starts going off, but it might be too late by then. What if women waited until their kids were in school before they set out to become captains of industry – did anyone ever think of that one?
On the other hand, a greatly elevated rate of hypergamy is unsustainable. When average women don’t think average men are good enough for them, trouble is ahead. They may flock to Chad, but they don’t end up getting a relationship with him lasting more than 20 minutes. As for the causes, feminism is part of the problem, since they’ve been disparaging men since the 1950s and putting lots of really toxic rhetoric out there. Even just “You deserve better than average” can lead to a lot of dissatisfaction when everyone’s holding out for Brad Pitt. (That was hyperbole, but yanno…) The result is that a lot of guys check out of the social scene, screw around with bar girls in Southeast Asia, or end up with Third World mail order brides. I’ve tried to discourage that, but I’m just one voice out in the wilderness.
Pop culture is another factor leading to dissatisfaction. This includes wish fulfillment stuff like rom-coms, romance novels, and even all those animated princess movies for the kiddos. The chick porn classic 50 Shades Of Grey was phenomenally popular. The guy was a billionaire with washboard abdominals – how common is that in real life? A mere millionaire would not do – perish the thought! So there are about 3000 billionaires in the entire world. Only a tiny few will be handsome and physically fit – many are aging financiers, some are Silicon Valley weenies who couldn’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag.
Online dating seems to be the final nail in the coffin. With a male/female ratio of 3:1 or 4:1, pickiness increases tremendously. If you wish to find out how much, you can create a fake profile of an average man and another of an average woman, and see which gets the most attention by far. Or, you simply can read up from others who’ve conducted the very same experiment! If guys are rejecting all women other than the most beautiful, that’s a new one on me.
Lots of couples used to meet at work – around the 1980s or so, it was close to a third. That’s a pretty good environment to get to know what someone’s personality and work habits are like. After the #MeToo thing, badly-received flirting can mean career suicide. That closes off one avenue for couples to meet, pushing them toward singles bars and online dating, more likely to lead to hookups than meaningful relationships.
These factors all together are at least partly responsible for why our fertility rate is below replacement. It wouldn’t be such a big problem if our government weren’t flooding our countries with rapidly-breeding Third Worlders, of course. Despite being a Neanderthal, I actually do want what’s best for our women (and our men and especially our children). However, if I had to choose between what’s best for our people, versus women’s empowerment as defined by the likes of Gloria Steinem, I know what I’d prefer.
With the shift in political tides, here’s hoping your book can be more widely discussed.
You typically see the white knight style conservative commentators among the older generations. They typically have daughters, whom I’m sure are very polite and civil at home. They find criticism of women distasteful, partly out of a desire for mainstream respectability (which ends up just being feminism with extra steps) and party to boost their own ego as a “real man” who doesn’t have to stoop to the contemptible lows of critiquing female behavior.
They want to feel like the patriarch that conservatism tells them they should be, and so they make these moral pronouncements which sound ridiculous because they have the tone of patriarchy without any of the force.
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.