3,704 words 
The sexual revolution had no unambiguous “Thermidor” moment like the fall of Robespierre to bring its most radical phase to an end, but by the beginning of the new millennium it was clear feminism was no longer carrying all before it as it had just a few years earlier. Its institutional legacy, of course, is with us still, and the work of clearing it away has scarcely begun.
In the late 1990s I read and was influenced by Maggie Gallagher’s book The Abolition of Marriage (1996). She pointed out that much of the debate surrounding sex at that time pitted angry lesbian radicals against “sex-positive” liberationists left over from the 1970s. She wished to defend an older way of thinking: marriage creates a permanent bond. It means giving up the right not to care about someone. And she pointed out that marriage in this original sense was not “under threat,” but already a thing of the past. Misnamed no-fault divorce, which really refers to divorce without grounds at the demand of either spouse, had effectively abolished marriage as a legal institution, which presumes that traditional wedding vows mean exactly what they say.
She also noted that one reason for lifelong monogamy was the weakness of the man’s position. She did not explain in detail what she meant by this, but it was easy enough for me to recall my old high school biology textbooks with their pictures of millions of tiny sperm competing to fertilize a single enormous egg. In other words, if Gallagher was right, marriage existed not to limit the amount of sex available to men—as male sexual utopians of the 1960s thought—but to get sex (and families) for as many men as possible. This came as a revelation to me. Feminists were not defending the oppressed, but trying to increase the strength of the naturally stronger sex over the weaker all the way to infinity.
Also in the late 1990s I became aware of a group of men who were responding to the sexual revolution in a way that struck me as profoundly uninformed, misguided, and counterproductive. These men were known as paleoconservatives, many connected with the Rockford Institute and its monthly publication Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. It was my interest in politics rather than the sexual revolution that led me to Chronicles and the paleocons, and I found much of their political thought enlightening, especially that of Sam Francis.
But the editors of Chronicles were also quick to speak out in the most authoritative tones against the sexual revolution, and this material seemed to me clearly the worst that appeared in their magazine. There was nothing on the date rape and harassment hysterias with whose fallout millions of men were struggling. By contrast, their neoconservative rivals at publications like Commentary produced thoughtful critiques of such utopian excesses.
For the editors of Chronicles, the year was still 1969, and the Woodstock Festival had never ended. They knew less about recent feminist-inspired sexual hysterias than if they had been farmers with the old order Amish. In their minds, all sexual dysfunction was men’s fault. Scarcely a single comment of theirs on sexual matters failed to describe contemporary young men as “predators.” The difference between this view and Andrea Dworkin’s thesis that men are rapists was not entirely obvious. Women were virtuous creatures longing for holy matrimony, but men simply used and discarded them like trash. Such men ought to be punished, then punished again, before being punished some more. It was rescue fantasy masquerading as social commentary, with the paleocons casting themselves as the men on white horses in some old nickelodeon feature, riding up at the last minute to free the damsels in distress whom mustache-twirling villains had tied to the railroad tracks.
The reader will note that this paleocon narrative of the sexual revolution does not correspond to what I observed at college in the 1980s, as recounted at the beginning of my last essay.
A favorite paleocon trope was the need to bring back the death penalty for rape. That young man whose trial for “acquaintance rape” I had read about just a couple years before was fortunate not to get a Chronicles editor for a judge. Harsh penalties for rape may make sense in a strictly monogamous society, but not in one where rape has been redefined as a mere violation of a woman’s momentary, or even retrospective, wishes. Today it would result in killing off a lot of men whose only crime was not being voluntary celibates. And advising such men to seek security in marriage won’t cut it either, for there is no longer any security in marriage, as Maggie Gallagher correctly noted.
Gradually, the reason for the paleocons’ misunderstanding of the sexual revolution began to dawn on me: they were all older men who had dated in their youth according to the sort of rules outlined in my first essay in this series, “Dating, Marriage, and Sex in the 1950s.” They remembered their own powerful and unruly sexual urges but were clueless concerning female sexuality, which one did not need to understand in order to find a girlfriend or wife in those days. They never said anything about female attraction to status, wealth, power, or even good looks. They were like men of the 1950s who had never noticed that their dates were excited over Elvis Presley. Their complete understanding of the opposite sex was “women want marriage.” They may even have imagined young women anxiously seeking out men of the most sterling moral character for this purpose, i.e., men such as all of them used to be when they were young.
They also appeared to be unaware of something Maggie Gallagher remarked upon as obvious: the weakness of the man’s natural position. Most of them probably thought they had chosen their wives, when in reality it was their wives who had chosen them. And if you do not know that women constitute the supply side of sex, and are therefore the primary choosers in the mating dance, nothing much you might have to say about sex is going to be of any value. It would be like sounding off on complex economic issues without ever having heard of supply and demand.
You can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
In the minds of these older male traditionalists, the sexual revolution must have liberated male sexuality, the only kind with which they were familiar. Those degenerate hippies of the late 1960s must have forced themselves on poor, misguided hippie girls. And their successors must be continuing to do so right down to the present. Date rape was no hoax, but the inevitable result of liberating male desire. Harassment law was no more than a reasonable response to men whose urges were spinning out of control. This whole narrative was a chivalrous male version of Andrea Dworkin’s nightmare vision of women getting raped and violated everywhere all the time. And it was no closer to the truth, which can be summarized as follows: When monogamy breaks down, the result is intensive polygyny driven by female desire. If sexual behavior were driven by male urges instead, the result of liberating those urges would be all the men gang-banging the most attractive young women—something never observed outside a pornographic movie.
Speaking of pornography, traditionalists are still up in arms over it, just as they were in the 1950s, and just as they probably always will be. And pornography has undoubtedly gotten both worse and far more abundant. “Streaming” internet porn has proven addictive to many young men in a way the girly magazines I remember from the 1970s never were, and it has measurable effects on the male brain and sexual functioning. The reader may consult Gary Wilson’s enlightening book Your Brain on Porn for details. The most important point to grasp is that the people most harmed by pornography are not the sluts who make the stuff for easy money, but the male end-users. Porn whores are exploiting these men, not vice-versa.
But another pattern has persisted as well. Only male sexual substitutes carry moral and social opprobrium. Betty Page is still considered worse than Elvis Presley. Romance fiction and celebrity gossip publications (like People magazine with its annual feature on the “sexiest man alive”) go their merry way without a peep of opposition. They may be laughed at as frivolous, which they certainly are, but not denounced as immoral. But I suspect that if women were to start purchasing pictures of naked men to gawk at, there would be no lack of men defending them. In fact, I would bet the house on it. Pornography is condemned with such fervor not because it is objectively more harmful than female sex substitutes, but because it is designed to appeal to men.
Even women’s advice books have gotten worse, and now include detailed, do-it-yourself guides to divorcing your husband, bankrupting him in divorce court, and destroying your own family by separating your children from their father. To my knowledge, no one is calling for outlawing such publications or punishing those who profit from them; only pornography and pornographers call forth such a response. Yet women control the supply of sex, and so bad influences on their behavior are likely to be far more consequential than the influence of pornography on men. In my view, if better and more reliable women were available to men, fewer of them would be turning to a substitute like pornography in the first place. What does it say about today’s women that so many men clearly prefer porn?
The young men of the 1990s who bore the full brunt of the hate campaigns against date rape and harassment remained strangely silent during those years. As I have repeatedly noted, men do not like to complain, but there are limits to how far even the toughest and most stoical of men can be driven. Early in the new millennium, I began picking up on men’s reactions to the sexual anarcho-tyranny and female utopianism of the 1990s on that brand-new technical marvel known as “the internet.” Anonymous discussion forums emerged where men could share their experiences and reflections without fear of ridicule. One comment that has always stuck in my mind was, “If women had a lick of damned sense they would be in the streets demanding the return of their traditional meal ticket”—marriage to a man obliged to support them—“but of course, they don’t.”
One experience reported by many of these men might be labelled “women arriving ten (or fifteen, or twenty) years late to the party.” It happens like this: a lonely young bachelor toils at his job day-in, day-out, watching his words carefully to avoid harassment accusations while he wonders where his wife is hiding. Then, well into his thirties, he finds himself being approached by pre-menopausal women his own age offering him transparently insincere compliments. He understands, of course, that these are the same female contemporaries who have been ignoring him ever since high school. It is finally dawning on such spinsters that reading Cosmo all these years has been a colossal waste of time. No movie star would be showing up to make all their dreams come true, so they were reluctantly resigning themselves to socializing with mortal men whom in their heart of hearts they still considered not good enough for them. Naturally, no man is going to feel flattered by such belated attentions, nor attracted to the women offering them. I once heard a man say of these women, “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” So the men tell them, in effect, “thanks, but no thanks.” To the women, this is obvious confirmation that men are bastards after all.
And there are some women to whom such a realization never comes. They persist right on up to menopause and beyond dreaming about getting swept off their feet by an “alpha male,” rendered chaste through lust. I remember hearing of one woman who openly stated that she could never compromise at all regarding men, no imperfection was tolerable. Of course, she might as well have taken a vow of celibacy. Christianity actually developed a teaching that nuns are “brides of Christ.” How different is that, really, from the attitude of the above-mentioned woman that no one short of a god is good enough for her?
I have a favorite anecdote about women showing up too late. It concerns a man who exactly fit the description of someone a mother of the 1950s would have wanted to see her daughter dating and marrying. He was ambitious, hard-working, clean-living, and dreamed of becoming a husband and father. But no woman was interested in him. So he did what good men do in such a situation. He went right on plugging away at his job and his life without complaint. The money he had hoped would pay for his children’s upbringing accumulated uselessly in a savings account year after year. Being a man of modest habits, he did not touch it.
Eventually he found himself well into his thirties with no marriage prospects at all, but with his wealth multiplying through compound interest and prudent investment. At last, our temperamentally modest and abstemious hero, seeing no possibility of starting a family, decided for the first time in his life to do something nice for himself. He took some money out of his savings account and bought himself a really first-rate sports car, which by this time he could easily afford. Within days, he found himself besieged by women with compliments on his wonderful personality.
Also early in the new millennium I became aware of another male response to the challenge of feminism and women’s sexual liberation: the pickup artist scene. These were younger guys who studied evolutionary theory and field-tested it in bars and other social spots to get women into bed. They obviously appreciated that this was no easy task for most men. They were too young to remember the “more sex” hoax of the early 1970s, and many clearly suspected they were having a more difficult time with women than previous generations. But they were determined to succeed, and some did. Yet a few more young men learning how to lure sluts into bed was not going to lead to a general revival of family life or raise Western birthrates back up to replacement level.
Some of the material put out by these pickup artists was genuinely enlightening, confirming and illustrating the evolutionary theory of sexual behavior. But I could not suppress the thought that no previous generation of men had found it necessary to master evolutionary psychology in order to get a woman. The paleocons were living proof. Most of them were married, and they understood absolutely nothing about women. Maggie Gallagher was obviously correct. Lifelong monogamous marriage had existed to make things easier for men, to provide a bit of institutional support for the man’s naturally weak sexual position. But no man seemed to have grasped this.
In another interesting development, rumors began to swirl that men were starting to avoid marriage altogether due to fear of divorce. A newspaper column published in 2002 introduced the concept of a male “marriage strike.” Is there a single young woman in America today unaware that she can cash out of her marriage the moment she becomes bored or dissatisfied with it? Plenty of forces within our society encourage her to do just that. Consider the recent Hollywood genre of “divorce porn,” typified by Eat, Pray, Love (2010), in which ditching a boring husband magically transforms a woman’s life into an exciting adventure—with a far more attractive man as her big reward at the end!
Is it reasonable to expect American men to reman unaware of the dangers of divorce, or to go on behaving as if they were? How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away before Charlie Brown begins to wise up?
So yes, men are beginning to avoid marriage. I split my sides laughing at a website called “nomarriage.com” apparently created by one of the strikers (NB: not to be confused with the current nomarriage.com site, which only dates from 2011; the one I found so entertaining can still be perused here.)
Of course, denunciations of such men have followed in abundance. They are “cowards” and “losers” who do not want to grow up and accept life’s responsibilities, etc. For most social commentators, especially men, nothing can ever be women’s fault. “Conservative” Senator Josh Hawley has recently joined the chorus of public figures scolding bachelors for attempting to avoid being plundered by ex-wives and the Office of Child Support Enforcement; as Stephen Baskerville points out, Hawley’s own career began as one of the plunderers.
Some men have another reason for shunning marriage: distaste at the idea of marrying a slut. For despite all the new punishments aimed at men as harassers and rapists, many women have gone right on indulging themselves sexually with men they find attractive, just as Cosmo encourages. Sometimes these women find themselves in their thirties with a history of several abortions and perhaps one or two surviving bastard children tagging along behind them—but still no husband. Contemporary men will be happy to tell you about the efforts being made to manipulate and shame them into marrying such women. “Man up and marry those sluts” is how they summarize the message being directed at them. But what is unmanly about not wanting to devote one’s life to paying the bills for another man’s discarded girlfriend and the bastards he sired upon her? As evolutionist Roderick Kaine has written: “Disgust toward the idea of commitment to whores is the correct attitude for men to have, and it should be encouraged” (Smart and SeXy, 217). Besides, if women wanted “equality in the workplace” so damned much, what is wrong with letting them pay their own way in life?
Some men have even begun to realize that a mere marriage strike is not enough. Given the dangers posed by sexual harassment and date rape laws, the only real way for a man to guarantee his own safety is to avoid women altogether. Nearly twenty years ago I discovered websites recommending the complete shunning of the female sex, sites obviously created by men with very traditional views on marriage and sex roles. These men traded horror stories about the female behavior they had observed on dates and elsewhere. With few exceptions, the women they had met were clearly unfit for marriage or motherhood, simultaneously unchaste and certain they deserved a handsome prince charming able to transform their lives into a romance novel fantasy.
In short, the women these men had attempted to date in the hope of finding a life-partner and helpmeet were the same monsters of feminine egoism described at the end of my last essay, the natural product of an education combining the sexual utopianism of Cosmopolitan magazine with the misandry of radical feminism. All such women were perfectly aware how easy and lucrative it could be to bail out of any marriage they became bored with; many consciously planned their divorces before the wedding.
Observing all this, certain men decided they had finally had enough. There was nothing left for it but to force such women to confront the folly of their ways by refusing them access to traditionally-minded men like themselves. Celibacy was better than divorce court and possible arrest as a “deadbeat dad.” Some of the men were considering expatriating to try to start families. (I am thinking here principally of the americanwomensuck.com website most active between 2003 and 2009, and still viewable at https://web.archive.org/web/20090215000000*/americanwomensuck.com. It had competitors, however.)
I soon discovered there was another group of men caught between the pincers of female insistence on exceptional sexual attractiveness and the feminist hate campaigns against “harassers,” and these men were not ready to resign themselves to chastity. Braving ridicule and contempt, they began openly complaining of their inability to find a mate, labelling themselves “involuntary celibates” or “incels,” and sometimes lashing out violently. Those voluntarily shunning women turned out to be the more self-controlled among contemporary men. Sexual dysfunction is clearly leading our society into new and dangerous territory.
At the very same time incels and woman-shunners were lamenting the impossibility of finding a good wife, the paleocons were ridiculing men who used pornography instead of “asking a real woman out”—as if there were simply loads of virtuous women out there just waiting for the opportunity to make good men happy, and all a fellow had to do was ask one of them out! I couldn’t help but think that the younger men frustrated with the spoiled feminist Cosmo-girls they had come to know so well had a better understanding of contemporary realities than men who had last dated before the sexual revolution even got into high gear.
The long and short of it was that the sexual revolution was finally succeeding in killing off sex itself, perhaps its inevitable end-point all along.
Once I had arrived at this point in my reflections, everything I had ever heard and observed about sex over the course of my life—as recounted in my previous four essays—started falling into place. The true nature of the sexual revolution became clear to me: it had been driven almost in its entirety by the female sex drive, not the male. That women were miserable as a result of this revolution was obvious, but their misery was not primarily due to male villainy—however desperately both feminists and paleocons wished to believe this. It was due to the intrinsic impossibility of punishing one’s way to utopia; it was the unhappiness of spoiled children impatient of restraint yet unable to see that merely obeying their blind and changeable desires is no guarantee of success in life.
Not being an enormous success in the world of academic philosophy myself, I had abundant leisure to reflect on these new insights, and one day I tried to get as many of them down on paper in a single long essay as I possibly could. The result was “Sexual Utopia in Power,” published in the Summer 2006 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.
55 comments
It’s interesting how you discuss the anonymous nature of the Internet allowing men to finally admit they were having trouble attracting women. One thing I notice on Twitter/X is the presence of the “gender wars” – men are constantly complaining about women, and women about men. I joined X mainly for political discussions, but the “gender war” discourse is so omnipresent I muted the word “women” in an attempt to clear up my timeline a little bit.
Regarding the sexual revolution leading to the end of sex, I think this is going to be a huge problem for the regime going forward. One thing that hhas really stuck out to me is the difference in how the media reacted to the two Trump victories. I wasn’t red pilled on race in 2016, but it seems like at that time the media focused on racism and the evils of White Nationalism, which coincided with the rise of the Alt-Right.
In 2024 the focus has been much more on the manosphere. Liberals are now talking about needing their own Joe Rogan and how to appeal to men again. Scott Galloway, who is quite liberal, basically echoes your theories on sexual relations but adds that it’s a problem because it could hurt feminism (an example of this starts around the 30 min mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li70iz1NaDY).
I actually think the breakdown of the relationships between the sexes could be positive for White Nationalism. While my main concern is the White race, it actually seems like the “gender wars” will be more destabilizing for the West in the short to medium run. As bad as the racial situation is for Whites in the US, if you have enough money you can move away from diversity. In the 1960s Whites were ethnically cleansed from cities across the country, and they basically just moved out to the suburbs and went on with life, even insisting how not racist they were when asked. There was a pressure release valve.
There’s not really an analogous escape if you can’t find a mate (outside of going abroad, which seems like it could never be a mass solution). As you point out, finding a mate was a pretty basic aspect of Western society through the 1950s. Marriage and family is also the main route by which people obtain fulfillment. The 1950s were not that long ago, and as more and more people are unable to find what they know their recent ancestors were able to, they are going to become disillusioned – not to mention the fact childless men have less to lose so they will likely be more apt to engage in dissident politics.
In a way I think it would have been smart for the people who plotted White genocide to hold off on sexual liberation – if they wanted the White race to disappear, introducing another extremely destabilizing social movement probably was not the best idea. Men with healthy family lives would be less likely to revolt against a system trying to destroy their race. I’m sure some of the people who promoted sexual liberation knew it was another means to demoralize our race, but they may have overdone it. However, maybe liberal views on race and sexuality are just a natural pairing, and promoting one without the other was implausible.
Nationalism and sexual politics are both connected to the continuation of the race. Activists in those spaces may or may not find it in good taste to acknowledge this, but their enemies certainly know it.
From the bottom up, the inseparability of marriage and race, marriage as the fundamental bond of family/community/race would have been a banality to our ancestors and still is to the flourishing non-white races. And from the top down, racial confidence, the belief that the universe looks with favor on your people, the belief that the more of your people the better, works its way downwards to the mindsets and self-beliefs of that race’s young men, to their conviction, or lack of it, that they’re worthwhile as individuals, that they have something good to offer a female partner, that they’re part of something bigger than themselves, that a serious long term project of bringing more people who look like themselves into a future world is both feasible and moral.
…the fundamental bond of family/community/race would have been a banality to our ancestors and still is to the flourishing non-white races.
I agree with almost everything you said, but will quibble with this. Which non-White races are flourishing? For a while, I held the view that the White population was shrinking and the African population was skyrocketing, and that was pretty much the foreseeable future. Two paradigmatic examples of this view were Steve Sailer’s graph of world population he repeatedly posted as “The Most Important Graph In The World” that showed the African population dwarfing that of all other continents (https://www.unz.com/isteve/2019-most-important-graph-in-the-world/). The other is Dan Roodt’s horrifying “An African Planet” essay which predicts what the planet will look like given these kinds of demographic predictions (https://www.amren.com/features/2015/07/an-african-planet/).
However, in the past few years there has been something of a “vibe shift” on this question. The first time I became aware of this was an essay written by Imperium Press explaining that birth rates for non-Whites were in many cases dropping below that of Whites worldwide (https://imperiumpress.substack.com/p/the-third-world-is-going-to-cop-it-b9e/comments). This was genuinely mind-blowing to me at the time it was published, since I had only been familiar with the narrative presented by the articles I posted above. Imperium Press’ theory is that because Whites (specifically NW Europeans) have been exposed to liberalism for centuries we’ve developed a tolerance to it, unlike non-Whites. The comparison of liberalism to a smallpox blanket is quite thought provoking.
Regardless of why exactly it’s happening, it seems that more and more the fertility crisis is seen as a global problem, not one just affecting Western nations. I don’t think there’s really much we can learn from “trad” non-Whites on this question, we will have to fix it ourselves.
Everything said in these articles highlights two facts. One is that most White Nationalists are simply unattractive to women. The second is that Women are the problem (more or less) and need to be reeled in, but WN are not capable of doing this.
What is the solution?
Women are attracted to success, and they are conformists who accept what the authority figures of their society tell them (“racism is the most wicked thing in the world”). So it is hardly surprising that they do not thrill with excitement over racial dissidents. As soon as we win, however, we can look forward to the same experience as that bachelor who finally gave up on women altogether and bought himself a fancy sports car. I, for one, will be about as impressed with women’s sudden and newfound admiration for nationalists as he was with his new admirers.
Women like winners, but unfortunately there is no indication that we will win. The few White Nationalists who aren’t losers are often not starting families either. We are at a dead end, here.
Women like winners, but unfortunately there is no indication that we will win. The few White Nationalists who aren’t losers are often not starting families either. We are at a dead end, here.
Tbh, when I read doom and gloom posts like this it hammers home my belief that American White Nationalism is heavily influenced by the country’s long history of radical Christian sects. Almost all of these groups (the Millerites, Oneida Society, Mormons, etc.) believed that they were called to lead an ‘elect’ and most of them predicted that the Apocalypse / Rapture would happen soon. The Millerites even dressed up in White Robes and then spoke of the Great Disappointment when they didn’t get raptured.
This is incredibly similar to modern American WNism. I see the same mindset of impending doom, calls for a radical utopian solution to save an ‘elect,’ and pseudo-eschatological rhetoric (look at the terms used for predictions of a racial conflict… the Day of X, Great X, etc.).
This is part of why I think we are years away from any of the things that people are demanding (ethno-states or explicit pro-White demographic policies). The biggest step forward is to dissect the ideology and culture of Americanism and then discard the psychologically destructive elements while creating a rhetorical framework that will appeal to high quality White Americans.
I know some people dislike Jason Kohne for using terms like ‘Westernkind,’ but his ability to popularize useful terms like White Wellbeing is a huge step toward building a psychologically healthy alternate culture that draws in good people.
I’m also not criticizing you for being disappointed, can 100% understand that. I’m just saying that we’ve got to pull ourselves out of that mindset.
I don’t know about that. Those movements were far more successful than White Nationalism, but there is maybe a similar personality type in all of these movements.
I would say that the major problem is with society itself: masses of average women who’ve been convinced that average men are beneath them. I don’t have a perfect solution societally. Individually, I’d say don’t waste your time with dating apps, since these are the most susceptible to the ego-pumping effect. Instead, find some down-to-earth types in real life. Also, learning about female psychology will help prevent guys from making big mistakes.
As for White Nationalists in general, if you attend one of our recent conferences, you might be surprised to find that we’re more photogenic than the average population.
The thing is, soon we won’t need women anymore to perpetuate the race. CRISPR is already here and artificial wombs are on the way too. It may sound dystopian, but it’s pretty much inevitable.
Still not convinced that no No-Fault Divorce would make relationships better or that it did anything claimed about the social changes we’ve seen since 1945, when people were actually prosecuted for getting a divorce in another state. Plus, a prenuptial agreement works wonders against golddiggers and it isn’t rocket science.
As far as child-support, Bill Clinton was going to “end welfare as we know it” with his fishwife Hillary and very butch but apparently straight Attorney General.
The problem is that enforcing child support largely meant going after indigent Black men and furthering their incarceration rate ─ which was also Clinton’s secret to lowering violent crime, which seems to have been forgotten nowadays. So Clintonistan “welfare reform” was a big bust that went nowhere since Bill was well-endowed in the bovine scatology department but no Bull Connor.
I think some insights into the tennis match of the sexes can be gained from Evolutionary Psychology ─ within reason ─ as humans are not wild horses. Unless you only meet the opposite sex Online, I don’t get the problem.
For example, it finally dawned on me why so many hot middle-aged librarians would hit on me when their attorney husbands were not giving them any real fault. Well, they saw me as an attractive and safe Beta to fool around with. But I wasn’t that stupid to think the interest was very serious. Not many hits from *available* single professional women, although I wasn’t a pool boy so might have been too selective.
Plus, some women are basically cowards who just don’t have the courage to leave a boring husband who is actually paying the bills ─ assuming that it were even legal for them to unilaterally leave unless it can be proved that he’s actually raping the babysitter. Don’t get romantically involved with those kinds of spineless women. They are either available or they are not. And the hot-shot overpriced doctor or lawyer husband that the wifey wants to have a cathartic blowup to force their split can go from mild-mannered cuckhold to homicidal lunatic without warning.
The photograph accompanying this piece is quite funny. The guy’s bored Smartphone date actually needs a shave. Is she a Tranny? I think he could do a lot better. I do hate Feminism but Manosphere is just as cringeworthy.
The idea that decent men can’t find girlfriends and decent women these days is nonsense. It might be harder to find a Trad Wife nowadays, but I think you are better off getting someone who has some education and employment potential and not somebody scolding and hyper-dependent who dutifully reads the Bible and never quite found Prince Charming. Avoid Coalburners like the pox ─ they started as damaged goods and Rastus didn’t make that no better.
In the end, there has to be cooperation and a partnership. All this talk about Monogamy falls flat, but I suppose it sounds good from the pulpit. I still haven’t seen a credible definition of the 1960s-Present marketing scam called the Sexual Revolution let alone what to actually do about it.
A lot of things need to change to address the problem of White family formation and stable livelihoods focused on White families, and that is the main issue with the low White birthrate.
For the Incels, the more you learn how to deal with the opposite sex, and the boys learn how to make IRL friends with women and girls, the better. But keep your expectations reasonable. All women can be either Snow White or the wicked Queen. Learning friendship is a universal trait. And you either click as life partners or you don’t.
🙂
”The idea that decent men can’t find girlfriends and decent women these days is nonsense.“
Why do you think it is nonsense? If it is, why are most young men womanless? Why have one third of young men under 30 never had a girlfriend?
Several older people have said the same, but they aren’t young men seeking mates. How can they speak so confidently on the matter?
“Why have one third of young men under 30 never had a girlfriend?”
Very interesting: where did you find this figure?
Hello Roger,
Sorry for the late response. I admit I goofed on this one. I considered Professor Scott Galloway, though he is a flaming liberal, to be a reliable fact finder. And he appears to be concerned with men’s issues. More than once he has said that figure. I tried to find a source for it, but could not. All I got from searches are articles with figures showing that the majority of young men are womanless. From this information, I wouldn’t be surprised if in fact a third of young men never had a girlfriend.
I appreciate you driving home that women are not monogamous. Just a few days ago my friend and I were discussing the womanlesness crisis and he discussed his history of previous girlfriends and his wife.
Girlfriend #1 recently broke up with a man shortly before meeting him. She then “dated”/ was “bf and gf” with my friend and another guy concurrently.
I was with him in the mid aughts when he met girlfriend #2 through our friends at a bar. She was “going through a slow breakup” at the time, according to her. After breaking up with her then “bf,” she contacted my friend a month after that night at the bar.
He met girlfriend #3, who became his wife, while she had a “bf”.
A gorgeous Greek-American woman I went to high school was engaged six freaking times!
And as I’ve said in previous posts, I observed some young women “date” (ahem, screw), one man after another within their social cliques, going from one “bf” to another.
I can go on with story after story of this, but such discourse would go beyond what’s appropriate in length for posting.
The constructs of “dating” and “relationships” have lost all productivity and are worthless in many, perhaps most, cases, and I’m glad to see you, Dr. Baskerville and Janice Famiengo write them in quotes, as I have for some time.
I don’t know how “confidently” I can speak on the matter since I don’t know any of the afflicted individuals, but I do think that the matters in discussion are complicated and that sweeping generalizations about the youth are not especially helpful.
That being said …
Young people of both sexes are not getting out into real life, from what it appears, and it isn’t just men who are not only not getting married, but they aren’t even dating (nor even trying to date) let alone having sex. They started talking to X-Box instead of peers of the opposite sex, but I don’t want to point fingers at any one factor. Both sexes seem affected as well.
If I had to point ot one factor generationally it is the Internet. People can’t get very far on a dating app ─ so now, suddenly there are no girls or women to speak of and nobody will even talk to them, or even date them, let alone marry them? I just don’t buy this narrative.
I’ve got four sisters and each had quite a few kids, and none of my nieces and nephews would fall into the “Incel” category where they never went out on dates and “can’t get” married to a decent partner.
The main problem it seems in this scenario is how to steer the kids a little so that they learn how to avoid serious losers who will probably not become the best mates ─ the kind of guys who will cheat with the wife’s best friend next door ─ and probably become abusive. The same goes for the decent men in finding good friends who are girls, girlfriends, and ultimately wifey material.
My bet is that these people are just not making ANY kinds of friends In Real Life, let alone boyfriends and girlfriends, and therefore they are not too focused on “looking” for a wife or a husband ─ even if they think they cosmic forces are keeping them single.
Also, I think that educational realities and employment prospects and other factors like home ownership are indeed hitting Zoomers hard, but life was much harder for the older, WWII and Depression generations who never had too much difficulty forming families unless all they did was ride the rails with a Hobo kit.
I used to supervise college kids ─ thankfully no longer ─ and I have watched generations of kids work their way up as shift manager at Wendy’s and wind up with decent families in spite of putting on the lowly apron every morning. I have also had to slum-it a time or two in my own life working convenience stores and video rentals.
I felt that in the 1950s a High School diploma was probably actually worth something, but not in the 1970s or later in my experience, as the speed on the treadmill keeps getting set higher. But in spite of this, I never really stopped getting education and professional skills.
And one thing that I am sure of is that holding down ANY job, even shift supervisor at Wendy’s, is far more attractive to the fairer sex than excelling at Call of Duty.
Another good way to meet girls ─ volunteer for some things that girls think are worhwhile even if you have less interest. I have very little interest in “Hounds, Harleys, and Horses,” but I can laugh at a cat video with the cat ladies at the office. I have no interest in animal shelters, but I’ve volunteered at the church cannery on many occasions (when I was nominally a churchgoer).
And any community has lots of things like this going on, not just church-related, and there are always seasoned older women running such things. And these “seasoned older women” (and retired men) have daughters and granddaughters who they will want to introduce to fine young men that they know.
And nothing is more of a chick magnet than other girls making introductions to guy friends and aquaintances with girls that they know. The biggest gag-factor for me is that women of all ages now sport these vile tattoos, but that is another subject. I have always had a hard time respecting people who sport tatts and have cigarettes dangling from their mouths.
Anyway, the above point about forming freindships touches on another problem generationally, from my observations, in that most or many Zoomers, Milennials, and X-ers just don’t have any siblings or not very many of them ─ thus they do not learn some of the dynamics of family life as “Only” children.
That can be helped somewhat by building more community interactions and supporting hobbies that get kids out of the basement and off their damn Smartphones.
Different generations faced different challenges. I actually asked my Grandfather in the 1960s to explain the “Generation Gap” for me, something I had heard watching TV, and he gave me a very thoughtful answer. But for the most part human nature is still the same now as it was long ago, even if we have lost White Civilization, or what used to be called White Supremacy, and that we now face some very serious societal challenges.
In spite of the Internet, my life experience speaks strongly against the notion that nobody who has been around the block a time or two can ever understand the Doomer generation. And which “Doomer” generation exactly?
🙂
This is, overall, a wise essay from which younger men could learn much. But Dr. Devlin also frankly paints with an overbroad brush. I’m only slightly older than Devlin, so I, too, have lived through all of this, and while his general conclusions seem correct to me (both analytically and in relation to my lived experience, which has been exclusively urban, college-“educated”, and American; I’m not at all sure that many of these observations hit as close to the mark among rural Americans), we have to remember that there have always been innumerable exceptions.
Reading Devlin’s recent series might give a teenager the impression that, since the 60s, hardly any men cursed with looks short of Brad Pitt’s ever get any female ‘action’. This is ridiculous. After all, most people do eventually get married, even if marriage rates are plummeting for the youngest cohort (which has much more to do with Devlin’s observation about male fears of sexual harassment-harassment and financial rape in our feminist-dominated family law courts than it does with a lack of females wanting marriage).
I, too, am a long time Chronicles reader – for nearly 40 years. Devlin’s depiction of paleoconservative critiques of the Sexual Revolution is exaggerated and one-sided. I agree that the paleos were insufficiently critical of women’s sexuality (decades ago, I got into some trouble for observing that “women aren’t better than men, just weaker”, a sentiment I continue to hold). But they were critiquing the SR from the perspective of Christian standards, as well as traditional values and social arrangements – and were not remotely wrong to do so. They were always intensely anti-feminist, certainly more so than the accommodationist ‘conservatives’ at places like National Review, who essentially accepted what was once known as “liberal feminism” (also “individualist feminism”), which they saw as inevitable (ie, the feminist genie was not going to be rebottled, so we ought to embrace the version that is the least ‘leftist’) and a respectable counterweight to the radical “feminazis” embodied by the likes of Andrea Dworkin.
Moreover, sociobiology, made much use of by the long-time Chronicles editor, Dr. Thomas Fleming, in his excellent study of The Politics of Human Nature, did depict male sexuality as more promiscuous, and the female’s as more monogamous – something which I thought was now “conventional wisdom” in evolutionary psychology. Women are much more marriage-oriented than men. What man ever wanted to spend $50,000+ on a wedding? Everyone understands that marriage is more of a “woman’s thing” than a man’s. And most women (especially most white women!) do not want to be part of a harem! That’s something that powerful, alpha men like.
From what I can recall, perhaps the main lacuna in the “sex wars” analyses appearing in Chronicles over the decades was insufficient attention paid to Devlin’s pet theme of hypergamy. But most of the rest of their analyses was correct. When they advocated the death penalty for rape, they were always talking about what I call “stranger rape”, not mostly fictitious “date rape”. And I’m virtually certain that what the Chronicles writers had in mind was that which was the most common fact in stranger rape cases in the 1980s-00s (and perhaps up to the present), which is that of some feral savage ‘of color’ violating a white female – in which situations (and in many others) I, too, favor capital punishment.
Furthermore, who, exactly, was responsible for the SR? How did it happen? Feminists may have seen their opening to increase female power at the expense of men, but it was older males who still controlled society in the 1960s, and they went along with everything the feminists wanted. Older males ‘castrated’ their future younger male brethren in the same way they disempowered younger and future whites. Why?
Explaining the SR involves very complex questions of historical psychology as well as legislative history, but surely at least one answer was the desire of older, powerful males (the ones who could benefit from female hypergamy) to rid themselves of their aging wives in order to replace them with younger versions. Certainly, this happened countless times. Feminists, btw, noticed this ‘trophy wife’ phenomenon as much as did Christian conservatives.
A lot more needs to be said about all this. I end with two random observations. First, the Maggie Gallagher referenced early in the piece was (is?) a neoconnish type whom I distinctly recall reading about, at least 20 – and maybe 30 – years ago, having stated that anyone who was “prowhite” or complained about the war on whites was a “loser”. That doesn’t mean that her declamations about marriage are false, only that she has her own agenda that is probably not identical to ours.
And second, the plight of the incels is real, but we should beware of exaggerating it. Hypergamy is a very real phenomenon, one I noticed long before I knew there was a scientific name attached to it. But innumerable women (several of whom I’ve known personally) eventually ‘settle’ and even make what I call “desperation marriages” as they start to hit the “wall” of their mid-late 30s. Inceldom is something of a choice, and is often the male analogue to hypergamy. I know, because I’ve been there at many different points in my own life. It results when a man refuses to settle for a woman beneath a certain threshold of looks, and also refuses to engage prostitutes (whether for reasons of morality, health, hygiene or honor). Just as many women only want a ‘quality’ man (which, in my experience, far more often corresponded to a man’s money than his appearance, though perhaps times have changed in this regard), many men only want a ‘hottie’. I wonder how many true incels there are? Undoubtedly more than there should be in any healthy society, but probably not the 60% or more of men in their 20s today who report not having girlfriends.
What do CC prowhites think about the national legalization of prostitution? I would support it. There have been times when I didn’t have a gf, but did want a woman, and was unwilling to use a prostitute – though for legal and health/hygiene, not moral, reasons. If it had been safe (legally and medically), I might have. Certainly, for all incels but The Elephant Man, legalizing and regulating prostitution would offer alleviation of their physical (but I suspect not emotional) frustrations.
The “trophy wife” phenomenon has been greatly exaggerated because the men who engage in this behavior tend to be unusually prominent, so everyone notices when it occurs. But as Stephen Baskerville learned upon researching the subject, male lust for youthful flesh is not what drives the divorce statistics. Divorce is overwhelmingly initiated by women in cases involving children because they can keep the children and continue to extract resources from the husbands they have abandoned. Publicity regarding cases of men who take up with young trophy wives accompanied by relative silence regarding women’s overwhelmingly preponderant role in initiating divorce is simply another example of the tendency, found in both sexes, to exaggerate men’s faults and ignore or excuse women’s.
Everybody, man and woman, would prefer an attractive mate to an unattractive one. But the female version of “only a hottie is good enough” is more dangerous because 1) they are the primary choosers, and 2) they perceive a smaller percentage of men as “hot” than men do women. All those “only a hottie” women act on their desires and end up joining harems or having brief flings with highly attractive men (and are mystified at the failure of such men to “commit”), while the “only a hottie” men are generally lonely and frustrated. Furthermore, men with the “only a hottie is good enough” mentality tend to be those with the least practical experience of women. Men with broader experience know that the “hotter” a woman, the more likely she is to be a spoiled nut case.
The term “incel”, like “fascist”, has gone from a word that had a specific meaning to one used so broadly as to make it almost meaningless. It’s not uncommon to see feminists call married men with children “incel” (I guess in theory one could be in a dead bedroom, but that seems to be a different concept altogether) as a synonym for “misogynist”.
My understanding of the incel movement as it’s known today was originally focused on “lookism”, the idea that men who were “sub-5” (below 5/10 on a rating scale) were having trouble getting girlfriends but being gaslit that women don’t care about looks and it was their personality that was turning them away. These men claimed they could not get a single woman to show interest in them, thus they were “involuntarily celibate”. I would agree with you 60% of men do not fall into this category.
I think a factor surrounding inceldom that people have only recently begun to discuss is the polarization among political lines among Gen Z. Young women are much more liberal than young men. It would be one thing if liberal women just didn’t want to date White Nationalists, but they consider Donald Trump himself a Nazi and thus by extension anyone who voted for him to be a fascist. if there is a huge mismatch between the politics of young men and women, that will lead to large numbers of people not reproducing.
Of course, we are concerned with reproduction within the White race specifically. One other big problem I think is White men who have trouble getting a White woman will be tempted to defect to Asian women, creating mixed race offspring. A funny anecdote I recently saw was this post on X from a White male dating coach: https://x.com/thinkinpeach/status/1916831856508424622?s=43. This guy apparently was unable to find a wife until he went to Malaysia, and now sells a course teaching guys how to attract women. What was encouraging was the way people engaged with his post – people were mocking him for acting like he cracked some code on how to get a wife, when all he did was give up and go to SE Asia, where White men are at a huge advantage in dating. I think normalizing the stigma of WMAF relationships will be key to preventing this. No, Mr. Peach, you’re not surviving a “genetic bottleneck” (his words), you’re diluting your bloodline. You’re not engaging in “dynastic dating”, but dysgenic dating.
As for prostitution, I’m against it personally but it’s probably inevitable in a sexually liberated society. If Mr. Devlin is correct that the Victorian view of women that was common prior to the sexual revolution is fading, the arguments that a prohibition on prostitution is necessary to protect them will be less salient. After all, if we’re all just individuals living in an economic zone, what exactly is the argument against consenting individuals engaging in services for payment?
One other big problem I think is White men who have trouble getting a White woman will be tempted to defect to Asian women, creating mixed race offspring. A funny anecdote I recently saw was this post on X from a White male dating coach: https://x.com/thinkinpeach/status/1916831856508424622?s=43. This guy apparently was unable to find a wife until he went to Malaysia, and now sells a course teaching guys how to attract women.
A lot of White men who date Asian women try to pass it off as ‘I just like exotic women’ when its clear that they are taking advantage of higher SMV vis a vis Asian women. It’s a bit like how there’s a trend of older White women dating Hispanics (have seen several such couples recently).
There’s also the fact that college age Asian women are less likely to have prominent tattoos or to drink heavily, and a lot of conservatives like that.
No, Mr. Peach, you’re not surviving a “genetic bottleneck” (his words), you’re diluting your bloodline. You’re not engaging in “dynastic dating”, but dysgenic dating.
I’ve noticed that White men who are into Asians are into the ‘superior Eurasian children meme’ and I think that creates a really dysfunctional environment for their kids to grow up in. There was a blogger named EurasianTiger who talked about how he basically lost his mind due to it. Definitely a disturbed person, but easy to feel sympathy for.
If I recall correctly Eurasian Tiger drew some crude, sad but funny cartoons depicting the plight of alienated hapa sons.
A lot of White men who date Asian women try to pass it off as ‘I just like exotic women’ when its clear that they are taking advantage of higher SMV vis a vis Asian women.
I was actually reflecting on the same thing recently. I remember when I was growing up there was a concept of “yellow fever” to refer to White men who preferred Asian girls. At the time I didn’t really understand the racial dynamics of dating, so I just thought that some White men preferred Asian women and that was it. However, had I read the work of F. Roger Devlin at that time, I would have understood that men display and women choose, so these guys likely weren’t picking Asian girls over White ones, but more likely were being chosen by Asian women instead of White women and then coping that they just preferred Asian women the whole time.
I’ve noticed that White men who are into Asians are into the ‘superior Eurasian children meme’ and I think that creates a really dysfunctional environment for their kids to grow up in.
In my experience White men with Asian women tend to just downplay race, or at most say Asian women are more “trad” like you mentioned, without really mentioning their children. I briefly looked into Eurasian Tiger but I couldn’t find anything specifically about his parents instilling a sense of Eurasian superiority in him.
Are these people thinking they’re creating some master race that will add a few IQ points onto the Faustian spirit of the White man? It seems much more likely to create people with identity crises, as you noted. I mean, coming to grips with White identity in modern America is difficult enough, adding blood of an alien race to that just seems cruel to the children of these unions.
Regarding legalized prostitution: I don’t agree with it. Decriminalizing prostitution maybe, but not legalization. This topic raises a good point about incels – in that they are extremely socially awkward and struggle with any kind of face to face interaction.
I have commented here before about how if you put a naked horny woman in the incel’s bedroom, they still wouldn’t be able to make it happen. They have serious problems that go far beyond not being that good looking. Not to mention, I suspect a good number of them are closeted gays.
I believe mass inceldom is a symptom, perhaps what we can call a comorbidity, of a broken and atomized society, not the result of individual flawed men.
Have you ever been womanless (original definition of incel)? I was womanless until 20 years old, primarily because of poor self image and depression. Nothing in my entire life (middle aged now) made me angrier. A former friend of mine said, “there’s no stupider feeling than being womanless around men with women”. I agree with that.
Perhaps you don’t, but I believe some men get a buzz out of hammering down on womanless men, and I wonder what drives this considering the misery and alienation resulting from such a condition. There are even men who get angry at mere talk about womanless men.
Can anyone chime in on this?
It seems reasonable to think that the number of “individual flawed men” would be pretty much constant over time, especially if these flaws are based in genes. So if there is a sudden rise in inceldom, that points to cultural factors.
I think that when men confront this phenomenon, they face a choice: male solidarity to deal with a systemic problem or just hoisting themselves up personally by putting down incels as “losers.” The latter makes sense with highly narcissistic men, as well as men in an individualist culture, as well as men who don’t grasp that something is systematically wrong.
As for blaming “inceldom” on personal flaws–how many times have you read news articles about the most disgusting criminals including mention of the perpetrator’s “girlfriend?” Probably more often than articles about criminals without a girlfriend. Psychologists call it “hybristophilia,” and any unbiased observer knows it is a reality.
Good points Greg. I recall a conversation with Roger Devlin in which he touched upon this and said that there have always been men with personality issues and in the past even they got married and had families, and that although no man is “owed” (I detest this word as it is applied to the “incel mindset) a woman, social institutions are needed to give young men opportunities to find mates. Even Heinrich Himmler, in a speech on sexuality, expressed such a need, that matters of sex and reproduction should not fall solely on individuals, and that if such matters aren’t taken care of, a nation will go bye-bye.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’m a late Gen Xer from the lower middle class of one of the boroughs of NYC. By the 90s, with a shift in culture to utter vulgarity and worship of deviant behavior, sex became a currency, as Dr. Baskerville puts it. And because of this, deviant men in high school and my town, unsurprisingly the ones who got first dibs on sex, looked upon ordinary men as losers for not screwing yet. Three times, as a retiring, good-natured seventeen year old in 1997, who was busy just being a kid, I was insulted for this. “You never f— a girl!” Then from another scumbag: “You’re seventeen and never f— a girl before; that’s pathetic!” And yet a third: “I don’t think it’s normal that you don’t fool around with girls.” AS IF such males had great personalities. In fact, all three were hedonists, drug users, and scam artists (including criminality). But you’ll seldom see men picking on such men for their character defects. It is the womanless man who gets piled on (in some cases even by other womanless men)
I will never ever pick on womanless men. Dr. Pierce wrote, “Nothing makes a man angrier than lack of a woman”. There are now edgelord men on social media pushing for polygamy. I’ve asked a few in response to their posts what would be done with the consequence of hordes of angry, anti-social men whom they want to serve as an incel slave class but I’ve never gotten responses.
Opportunities offline for finding mates have become far fewer since the Gen X heyday, I believe. Back in the 90s and early aughts, young people could go to the local park up the block and be amongst hordes of others, or attend an outdoor keg party in a park or golf courses in the wee hours. Men didn’t “pick up” or “meet” women; they KNEW them.
Male solidarity doesn’t really exist.
Speak for yourself.
I am rapidly concluding that you are a crank who brings little value to this discussion.
As a teen, me and my friends had girlfriends sometimes and didn’t have them other times, but we never bashed each other for being single. Girlfriend drama was just a part of growing up. However, I don’t have patience for men who refuse to even try getting women. The idea that there are no women at all worth touching is bullshit. Those men really are hopeless losers.
The incel problem stems from both individually flawed men and social problems beyond our control. For one thing it’s overwhelmingly seen in younger people worldwide – roughly the 35 and under crowd – this is obviously caused by being socialized online rather than in real life. These people have mental disorders on a level that has never been seen before, and they’re heavily medicated. I’ve heard it described as the “nerdification” of the world.
Of course, men who struggle to attract women have always existed in small numbers, but the internet allows them to congregate and stoke their hatred in a way that never existed before. For what it’s worth, I know there are other aspects to this problem that I am forgetting.
Specifically with WN, I have noticed over the past 10 years on the Right that not all incels are White Nationalist, but nearly all WN are incels. If you look at the history of White Nationalism, you see it has always attracted sexually dysfunctional men.
“Specifically with WN, I have noticed over the past 10 years on the Right that not all incels are White Nationalist, but nearly all WN are incels. If you look at the history of White Nationalism, you see it has always attracted sexually dysfunctional men.”
This is rubbish.
I get the impression that this was truer in the past, but I’ve heard that our conferences have more and more impressive-looking young people, with families, now. It’s an encouraging sign.
“Women are much more marriage-oriented than men. What man ever wanted to spend $50,000+ on a wedding?”
A wedding is not a marriage. A wedding lasts one day at most; marriage is what comes afterwards. Women often fail to understand this distinction, but men should do better.
I knew one of these hard-working, intelligent, fairly handsome, and wealthy young men. If he had a flaw it was that he was and I assume still is a slave to redheads. If he had others it was that he also liked freckles, pale and slender feminine forms, and an impressive rack. He could not help giving out signals that he had a big house he wanted to share, a growing business, and a big bank account he was aching to spend on the welfare of little copies of himself.
Eventually he married and had his children with a rotund, unattractive, unromantic, and black-as-coal Indian woman, who from the outset did not care at all that her husband-to-be was not likely to be very attracted to her, but who wanted to live very well and to have her children live very well, and who was steady and willing to stick around to make sure that these things came to pass.
I did not object, because there would have been no point, as she got him on the triple rebound, after one White redhead after another had wrecked him emotionally, humiliated him with her bossy feminism and unfaithfulness, and made it clear that her raging narcissism, bad temper, and generally anti-male and pro-divorce attitudes prohibited a stable marriage. You don’t tell a friend whom you have seen suffer through this that they have to go back and try a fourth and a fifth and a sixth time.
Stories like this are a disaster for our race. I don’t believe any part or aspect of this is good for our race.
Your anecdote does not surprise me in the least.
If he had a flaw it was that he was and I assume still is a slave to redheads…
…after one White redhead after another had wrecked him emotionally, humiliated him with her bossy feminism and unfaithfulness,
I’ve noticed that Whites vary a bit in behavior based on both ethnic background & appearance. It’s a bit of a stereotype, but I don’t think its impossible for natural hair color to relate to other traits. There’s even some evidence of this:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-finds-link-between-red-hair-pain-threshold
In terms of redheads, they do seem a bit ‘sassier’ on average. Most of my redheaded coworkers have had more relationship drama than my blonde or brunette ones. It could also be self-perception. I have a former coworker (she moved on to a new job) who told me that, as a redhead, she felt special because men who like redheads are crazy about them.
Some young women take a profession of love as a contract. I have heard one woman after another say, “he’s the one that said he loved me,”in a way that meant he was infinitely obligated while she had no responsibility to display restraint or any sort of reasonable behavior.
Never mind marrying them, wooing women like this is as near as you can get to suicide without poison or a gun.
A frequent remark on those male discussion forums from the early aughts was “they (contemporary American women) are takers, not givers.” What else would you expect of women who have been taught nothing about the world except that they have all sorts of (entirely imaginary) “rights?” They end up thinking love is a relationship in which the man gives and they take.
That is a common fallacy that some movement becomes less radical only because it doesn’t look like at the beginning any more.
The article was entertaining, but I’d hoped from the headline for some solutions!
But I’ll paste an anecdote from one of those great sites you linked to: “My granddad told me an insightful story before my wedding. He said for the first year of marriage to put a penny in a jar every time I had sex with my wife. Starting in year two, take out two pennies every time we had sex. He said there’d be money in the jar when I died. I think he’s going to be right.”
I agree that the sexual revolution has been a failure because the women are stronger etc. There´s good observations in the article. However, the article gives the impression that almost all the women are slutty predators, and the western men are innocent, helpless victims. I hate to break it for you, but there are tens of millions of normal, western men who jump from bed to bed, commit adultery, use women for sex only etc. I understand that a writer must exaggarate a bit now and then to make a phenomenon visible, but this article was a little bit too black and white for my taste. Also I don´t like women being called sluts. We don´t call promiscuous men whoremongers, right? By the way, I hate feminism, too.
“We don´t call promiscuous men whoremongers, right?“
We should. We used to do something worse to such men: lynching! Men also had authors over teenage daughters and wives and could lay down the smack on scumbags while law enforcement looked the other way.
Dr. William Pierce: “When a father had some authority over his daughter, and a husband over his wife, another male approached either at his peril. Not only did female dependence carry with it the need for protection, but it also stimulated in the male the desire to provide that protection. The entire community was behind the man who drew his sword or his gun in defense of his womenfolk.
Today, when a wife may be more of a roommate than a mate and it is a rare father who has any authority at all over his teen-aged daughter, both the compelling urge and the legal right of a man to protect his women seem much less clear-cut. In response to an interloper he is more likely to telephone his lawyer than reach for his shotgun. Again, because of that he is less a man, and he knows it. So do his women.“
As I’ve written previously, during the latchkey-kid 90s, boomer fathers didn’t give a damn about their daughters’ well-being and safety and allowed them to bed down scum of the earth. I have refrained from stating some stories about those from my town and school that occurred because of lack of male authority.
I believe only the harsh measures we used in the past can correct the mess we’re living in.
Those men with shotguns are the real reason women used to appear “naturally monogamous.” Already in my book Sexual Utopia in Power I hypothesized that monogamy was a male invention.
Anomaly: May 10, 2025 Dr. William Pierce: “When a father had some authority over his daughter, and a husband over his wife, another male approached either at his peril. Not only did female dependence carry with it the need for protection, but it also stimulated in the male the desire to provide that protection. The entire community was behind the man who drew his sword or his gun in defense of his womenfolk.
Today, when a wife may be more of a roommate than a mate and it is a rare father who has any authority at all over his teen-aged daughter, both the compelling urge and the legal right of a man to protect his women seem much less clear-cut. In response to an interloper he is more likely to telephone his lawyer than reach for his shotgun. Again, because of that he is less a man, and he knows it. So do his women.“
* * * * *
…I have refrained from stating some stories about those from my town and school that occurred because of lack of male authority. I believe only the harsh measures we used in the past can correct the mess we’re living in.
—
You do not give the source for that Pierce quote, Anomaly, but thank you for providing it. Your conclusion is correct.
I found some more Pierce wisdom on the negative impact of feminization on our race, here: The Legacy of Dr. William Pierce: Dr. Pierce on Feminism: The Great Destroyer
...Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.
Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called “affirmative action” — isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.
When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay — when the men lose their self-confidence — then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.
Source is “Sexuality in a Sick Society” by Dr. Pierce.
Anomaly: May 11, 2025 Source is “Sexuality in a Sick Society” by Dr. Pierce.
—
Thank you for that, Anomaly. Though the National Alliance owns copyrights on Dr. Pierce’s entire body of work, when I put ‘Sexuality in a Sick Society’ in the Nationalvanguard.org search block it did not come up.
However, when I did a wider ‘Net search for ‘nationalvanguard.org sexuality in a sick society’, oddly enough, I found it here: Vanguard News Network » Blog Archive » Sexuality In a Sick Society
That’s the National Alliance-hater and thief Alex Linder’s site. Thievery is what Linder does; such is the “movement.” I’ll try to get this talk by Pierce to where it belongs: on the site he founded 30 years ago.
In the late 1990s I read and was influenced by Maggie Gallagher’s book The Abolition of Marriage (1996). She pointed out that much of the debate surrounding sex at that time pitted angry lesbian radicals against “sex-positive” liberationists left over from the 1970s.
That division still exists in Feminist circles; nowadays it tends to manifest over arguments about who counts as a woman.
Many TERFs are lesbians who refuse to believe that biological males suddenly become women upon wearing dresses. They tend to spar over this with sexual liberationists who want to create a ‘big tent’ version of Feminism. Some of the latter are transwomen who have aggressively pushed their way into leadership positions. These autogynephilic individuals – termed Trans-Identifying-Males by TERFs – are often very abusive. There are even articles that discuss this:
https://medium.com/@kittyit/you-told-me-you-were-different-an-anthology-of-harm-ab6d43debab5
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/1hw605w/negative_experiences_with_autogynephilic_males/?rdt=58705
Some Lesbians are also deeply jealous over seeing straight / bi Feminists in dysfunctional relationships with autogynephilic men. Often these men know that due to Feminism’s obsession with breaking gender norms, their female partners feel obligated to turn a blind eye to toxic behavior so long as it’s justified by saying they act that way due to ‘dysphoria’ or ‘overcoming patriarchal thought.’
There’s also a lot of unusual kinks among the Feminist crowd. Many gay / bi women these days refer to themselves as ‘bois’ and have signs of autohomoeroticism. In a sense, they’re not that different than the autogynephiles who Ray Blanchard termed ‘pseudo-bisexuals.’ Neither has a genuine preference for same-sex bodies; their primary issue is a fetish for role-playing as the opposite sex.
Both the classic butch lesbians – who normally seem bent on LARPing as lower working class men – and the stereotypically nerdy autohomoerotic yaoi addicts tend to view traditionally minded, White heterosexual men are their primary focus.
There was an interesting discussion about this on the r/Detrans sub where a straight woman who had struggled with gender dysphoria mentioned that she was fed up with the fact that a huge portion of the subculture she found herself in consisted of various forms of Marxism and that relatively few women had the same type of physical dysphoria that she did.
[For what it’s worth, the latter type of non-sexually motivated dysphoria in straight women, which is very rare, tends to peak during the teen years and then dissipate in one’s early 20s]
To expand on my thoughts about the intersection of gender and American culture…
American Culture and Gender
I often see “game over” comments when the issue of White gender relations are discussed; and I believe that a key factor in this is that many people are subconsciously influenced by a cultural paradigm that leads to defeatist sentiments. American style White Nationalism is influenced by America’s long history of fringe religious movements and this has created a negative internet echo-chamber. There are many individuals who repeat phrases (The Day of the Rope, the Great Slaughter, etc.) which come across as Apocalyptic and drive away serious people.
Most woman are going to feel, on a deep emotional level, a desire to avoid getting involved in a movement in which high quality men don’t police the more eccentric ones.
I therefore believe it is important for White Advocates to analyze America’s unique weaknesses and create a cultural framework that attracts high quality, psychologically healthy people who have a strong sense of determination. There is no reason why America can’t develop a White Advocacy movement that acts as a healthy, alternate culture which facilitates family formation.
In terms of the culture analysis required to achieve this, several historical figures have already done much of the work. Julius Evola’s essays American Civilization and Negrified America were a major step in my own political awakening.
Aside from Evola’s observation that America’s sexual relationships were becoming dysfunctional in the period spanning the 1940s to the 1960s; there were others who touched on the subject. The book The American Enemy: A History of French Anti-Americanism includes quotes from Frenchmen in the late 1800s who were convinced that American men were often the victims of bossy, overbearing wives. Here is a quote:
So the American man was not having much fun. That was a known fact in France in the late nineteenth century. His home was a contentious place where he suffered his daily martyrdom of resignation. Fortunately, he was not really wanted there, and his occupations, which kept him working long hours at the office, reduced his sufferings.
How many of the Paleocons who scold other men for not ‘manning up and getting married’ would the statement above apply to? Probably quite a few.
Nearly all of us have met men like this. One of my first jobs was at a restaurant in which the owner, a well to do middle aged man, would receive calls from his wife who seemed to have very little affection for him. He took his verbal beatings like a man – which to him meant refusing to fight back or disagree, lest his home life be miserable. There are women who are stuck in equally bad relationships, but the fate of men in bad marriages has been brushed under the rug for a long time.
My own belief is that America’s unique view of women (namely, excessive idolization of women who fit a certain image – and little interest in those who don’t) is largely due to the country’s history as a frontier civilization. America spent decades with towns that had a severe ‘woman shortage’ and this would have caused the ‘price’ of women to inflate. The Wild West was probably a rather lonely place full of incels:
https://lincolnmullen.com/blog/divergence-in-u-s-sex-ratios-by-county-1820-2010/
I imagine that this shaped America’s culture. Unfortunately, many people simply view White Americans as ‘generic Whites’ and don’t acknowledge the cultural framework and mindset that Americans have inherited. There is a reason why Carl Jung and Evola both noticed that many Americans have recognizable mannerisms. White Americans are culturally quite distinctive.
Some Women Recognize Feminism for What it Is
When discussions about gender occur there’s often talk about women who have similar views to male analysts. Mr. Devlin brings up the case of Maggie Gallagher. While I haven’t read her work, I have read some of Esther Vilar’s. She was born in Argentina to Jewish parents. Her most famous book was written in 1971 and titled The Manipulated Man.
The crux of Mrs. Vilar’s argument was that men are not actually oppressing women as a class and are, in fact, often somewhat delusional about the role of women in society. She noted that she saw endless streams of men pouring through Buenos Aires to build roads, fix bridges, take orders from other men, and then go home to their wives. The majority of these men loved their wives and had no intention of oppressing them. They saw themselves as bread-winners whose job was to take care of their wife (which implies a rather high position for the wife, if much of the man’s work is dedicated to her wellbeing).
Vilar argued that Feminism was illogical and mainly the work of a small minority of women who were dissatisfied with their lot in life. Many other women have made similar arguments.
While I’m not a fan of her husband’s work, Rachel Wilson from the Whatever podcast has talked quite extensively about the nature of Feminism and how it impacts women. She often points out videos of young women being asked politically incorrect questions and, more often than not, if one of the girls starts to say something ‘wrong’ she will be corrected and told not to say that in an interview by her friends. Wilson termed it the ‘Sisterhood Effect’ and argues that a surprising number of women see through the nonsense of Feminism but refuse to say anything due to fear of shaming language.
Based off everything I’ve seen, there’s a lot of truth to that.
My Dating Advice for Right Wing / Nationalist / etc. Men
If I were giving a male friend dating advice, I wouldn’t encourage him to long for a woman who is ‘100% redpilled.’ Andrew Anglin may have gone overboard with the woman-bashing (likely for monetary reasons, IMO) but he did have a point about that.
I think a good starting goal for a man would be to exercise, get healthy, and try to find a woman who is politically neutral and who has a healthy lifestyle and mind. Odds are, over time she will come around to his way of thinking.
Red flags that I would encourage men to avoid:
Septum piercings (this is normally a way to signal ‘I smoke a lot of weed and am looking for a pothead boyfriend’)
Radical Leftism, especially adherence to Marxist Third Worldism (which is common on campuses now due to Palestine). No matter what you are told about women ‘changing for an alpha’ it is a bad idea to get into a relationship with a woman whose worldview is based off of resenting what you are. Not all Leftists are equally bad, BTW. Women who support Leftist causes for economic reasons will have fewer issues than the ones whose politics center around anti-White ideas. If you are a White man then you should avoid women who hate White men.
Excessive alcohol use
Signs of a highly narcissistic personality.
I would also encourage men to be careful about dating women who have distanced themselves from their femininity. In the modern world, many ‘tomboys’ identify as non-binary and masculinize themselves for troublesome reasons. They’re often not doing well and I don’t know why the 4chan / Twitter crowd is posting tomboy girlfriend memes. The memes have zero to do with reality.
Women who have genuine interests in stereotypically masculine subjects are, on average, going to be less problematic than women who uglify themselves as a half-baked scheme to show the patriarchy how much they hate it but they’re not common.
Dani, could you contact me at [email protected]? I want to talk about turning this into a stand-alone article. Thanks
Fans of my writing may enjoy this just-published Substack piece by a female author concerning the “naturally monogamous” sex and all the joys a young husband has to look forward to:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163223370
I read that this morning and was going to link it here, but you beat me to it. By the way, did you ever get to check out the film Kids?
That’s a good article.
Interesting read. I have a couple thoughts.
Firstly, I find this trend of women publicly talking down their husbands bizarre. Last year I was on a plane when I overheard a woman refer to her husband as a “49 year old child” to a stranger she had met a few minutes prior. Funny enough, that was my flight back from AmRen and it reinforced the difference in quality between the people at that conference and much of the general populous.
Secondly, the transition she documents from “sexual liberation will benefit society” before it happened to “it doesn’t matter if sexual liberation benefits society, and if you care whether it does, you’re a misogynist” when the benefits failed to materialize was fascinating. It almost exactly parallels the narrative on mass immigration. At first, it was going to benefit us. Then, when we realized it makes everything worse, not only were we not allowed to notice, it turns it’s actually good that our countries are getting worse because it’s karma for slavery and colonization! We’re a long ways from the utopian leftism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Warren Farrell started out as a male feminist in the 1970s taking women’s complaints about their husbands at face value. He found the husbands had no complaints about their wives. But eventually he managed to establish trust with a few of the husbands of his feminist friends and they finally began sharing the truth with him: he could not believe the things some of these poor men were putting up with! It was like a dam finally bursting. The men were simply stoical and reluctant to share their marital unhappiness with anyone they did not fully trust.
“He took some money out of his savings account and bought himself a really first-rate sports car, which by this time he could easily afford. Within days, he found himself besieged by women with compliments on his wonderful personality.”
I didn’t answer this because I thought someone would deny that it works like that, and I would answer them. But it’s obvious no-one is going to deny this. We all know how this works.
Comments are closed.
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.