June 2009 Beta Of The Month

June coughed up a bevy of magnificent betas! There were so many good choices, I’ve expanded this month’s voting to a three-way contest.

Before we get to the reader submitted June candidates, it’s time to announce the May 2009 BOTM winner:

Congratulations, Edmund Andrews, reporter for the New York Beta Times (AKA “All The Lies That’re Fit To Foist”), you are our May 2009 BOTM winner! You, sir, are a beta. Hang your head proud, shuffle your feet with joy, you represent the worst of what it means to be a man. May your aged Argentine wife’s future boob job drive you into bankruptcy a second time. May her yoga instructor avoid eye contact with you.

June 2009 BOTM Candidate #1 was submitted by reader cz. It’s a news report about an heir to a billion dollar media empire in Australia who gets publicly humiliated over and over and over again by Australia’s version of the DC lawyer cunt. A photo of the loving couple practically tells the story:

stokesgordon

Ever notice how some women just *look* like bitches, before they’ve said one word? Is it her arrogant, smug mug? Her fuel-injected chin? Her severe hairstyle? Hmm, who does she remind me of… who could it be now?

So what makes Ryan Stokes, the billionaire heir in this story, a contender for betatude above and beyond the call of pity? Is it the fact that his girlfriend snorts coke with a badboy biker and, if I were a betting man, likely has taken his kickstand long and hard up her ass?

MEDIA heir Ryan Stokes has remained in Broome while his troubled girlfriend Jodi Gordon tried to avoid the limelight after she was linked to a cocaine-fuelled bender with a Kings Cross bikie. […]

Police found her in the unit of the suspected Rebel bikie member [Mark Judge], said to be allegedly suffering from the effects of illegal drugs. […]

Judge, a tattooed hard man said to be a member of the Rebels, is serving a two-year suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to the 2005 assault of a Newcastle man. He faces sentencing on further charges (detaining and occasioning bodily harm on a Llandilo man) later this month in Penrith District Court.

Or is it the fact that his lovely girlfriend has a history of slutting it up and rubbing his high society face in it?

It is not the first time Gordon’s public behaviour is said to have affected her relationship witStokes. In February, The Sunday Telegraph reported the pair had argued after Gordon wanted to continue partying “beyond her curfew” on her 24th birthday.

Last year at the Ivy Gordon was allegedly seen crying before “knocking back” shots and openly flirting with men and women.

Or perhaps it’s that he’s engaged to a whore who has a penchant for hanging out with shady underworld figures?

Gordon is a regular on the Kings Cross circuit, friendly with club owners Dave Evans and Julian Tobias among others.

She often frequents Darlinghurst Rd club The Piano Room, a notorious hang-out for celebrities and underworld figures, where she met with Judge before returning to his apartment.

A Seven spokeswoman denied Stokes and Gordon were engaged, despite Gordon sporting a diamond ring on her wedding finger last Friday.

…and then in typical amoral female fashion, absolving herself via testimonials from friends of any personal responsibility:

“Jodi’s holding up: she’s a strong, stoic girl, but she is also acutely aware of the damage she’s done,” a friend of Gordon said.

“She’s devastated that she’s caused so much turmoil. (She’s) honestly appalled by what’s happened.”

Translation: “I feel bad that people are freaking out about this. It was out of my hands. What was I supposed to do? My gina tingled!”

No, it’s none of those things that catapults Mr. Stokes to BOTM nominee. Dirty, soulless, ballchopping sluts are a dime a dozen. What pushes Stokes into the rarefied atmosphere of truly mythical betas is the fact that he’s a FUCKING BILLIONAIRE HEIR WHO COULD GET HIMSELF A BETTER BITCH TOMORROW if he had ANY BALLS AT ALL. Instead, he suffers his cheating, whoring, lying, floozy girlfriend’s humiliation and begs for more. If you are a man with options, there is only one thing you say to a Jodi Gordon after you discover she’s been in the company of an ex-con biker:

Get the fuck out.

***

June 2009 BOTM Candidate #2 was submitted by reader db. Drum roll please…

It’s droning commenter cuntrag’s Italian eunuch ex who serves as her personal chef and babysitter!

No I don’t have to cook, one of my exes comes over and cooks enough for me and my son for the whole week. (He’s Italian and loves to cook). As for the cleaning, he does the things I hate like dishes and sweeping but the rest I do myself because I have OCD and am VERY particular about the way things are in my home.

Hm. I see. So let me get this straight. Your ex comes over to cook a week’s worth of meals for you and your bastard child, sweeps your fucking house and does the dishes because those are the chores you hate the most, has to deal with your fucked up OCD issues and Teutonically grating, unfeminine personality, and gets…

NO PUSSY IN RETURN.

Skittles Man laughs at your Italian ex.

Cuntrag, you attract second-rate men into your life. SECOND RATE. Say it to yourself. You are a prematurely aging, BMX biker banging, single mother who has her pick of SECOND RATE low self esteem loser betas.

You’re a winner!

Now of course you will probably protest that your Italian ex is handsome, caring, assists you of his own free will, and can fuck you like a champ, if you so choose to let him. Unfortunately for you, none of that is relevant. All that matters is the fact that Antonio Eunuchio does slave work for you and gets nothing in return but your annoying flapping gums. This instantly puts him in the running for BOTM.

I’m feeling in a generous mood, so I will leave you once again with some valuable advice I gave you in the comments of my blog not too long ago (which, naturally, I don’t expect you to heed):

you [cuntrag] claim you are OK with an assortment of random short term pump and dumps and loveless flings, as long as you have your LIFE and your HOBBIES and your bastard SON and your YOU GO GIRL amen chorus of eunuch omegas and low class allentown high school dropout girlfriends to keep you occupied, but i guarantee that in a few years when your looks have completely cratered and you can’t even find a halfway decent man who isn’t a total beta loser willing to spend the minimal effort to fuck you for a few nights, nevermind willing to stay with you and your unfortunate spawn from a DUI-collecting loser badboy, and when the prospect of love from a good man — deep true amazing soul-nourishing love — is lost to you forever, you WILL feel the cold shadow of desperation trace its gnarled finger down the back of your neck and spine.
and you will shiver, remembering my words.

and as for your breathless contention that as a woman you don’t have to worry that you’ll never get laid again, i have two words for you: quality matters. an aging single mom can get laid, but she’ll only be able to do so by gradually lowering her standards. most single moms manage something like this by lying to themselves and to blog audiences about the steadily declining quality of men they are bagging. i’ve no doubt an arrogant cunt so completely lacking in self-awareness like yourself with do exactly that. right now, it’s low SES bikers and italian eunuchs who orbit your shriveling vagina. soon, it will be urine-soaked homeless bums and david alexander clones.

of course, one day not too far in the future, 5 years or so, your standards will have been forced to bottom out so low that you find it easier on your ego to abdicate men altogether instead of suffering the indignity of laying listlessly through awkward, arid rutting with weaselly sycophantic suckup betas or suffering the shame of spreading for yet another 50-ish drunken lout with a boob tattoo on his chest and a penchant for expressing his rage through cigarette burns on your arm. and then you will tell everyone here how happy you are that you don’t need a man in your life. you are an INDEPENDENT WOMAN.
and no one will believe you.
and when the pain and horror of your life begins to pile up on your psyche like a staten island landfill or the waiting list at the allentown battered wife shelter, not even you will believe yourself.

now, you could follow my advice and do the smart thing before it’s too late:
LEARN TO SETTLE.
but i don’t think you’re that smart, so i’ll just laugh at your pain instead as i twist the shiv of reality deeper into your overtanned prematurely wrinkled patent leather husk.

oh and here’s a very special ps just for you: in fifteen years, when you are 43 and looking 103, you WON’T EVEN BE ABLE TO GET LAID without paying for it or frantically flirting like a sad mangy cougar with the absolute lowest of CHUD-like, shambling losers and male detritus. you can pretty much give up on your dream of forever banging younger betas who worship the floor-length dangle of your labia.

Cuntrag, you once asked why I give you a hard time. The answer is this: I enjoy making an example of you. It amuses me.

***

June 2009 BOTM Candidate #3 was submitted by reader Thursday. It’s an article written by Rod Dreher, syndicated columnist, one-time National Review contributor, and self-described “crunchy con” (read: religious, Luddite hippie social conservative). Rod writes about adultery. His words betray the soul of a beta:

I’ve been thinking a lot over the past day about why I have such intensely strong emotional reactions to news about adultery, comparable to my fierce reactions to news about child abuse. It’s perhaps a bit odd, because I grew up in a family in which no one committed adultery, and no children were abused (a friend of mine, though, suffered through his father’s abandoning his mother and him when he was a boy, and is far more emotional on the topic than I am). The best explanation I can come up with is that I am a papa bear about my wife and kids. I really am. I would give up my life without a second thought for any of them, and I struggle every day to be worthy of them. If my wife ever committed adultery, under most circumstances (i.e., true contrition and repentance), I would hasten to forgive her, not only because I love her that strongly, but also because I would see it as my duty, in love, to do whatever I could to make our marriage whole again, for the sake of the children. That said, I honestly don’t know if I could live with myself if I were unfaithful to my wife, nor do I imagine myself capable of receiving her forgiveness. I know that is disordered, but were I to betray her, I’d also be betraying my children, and the thought that I had done such a thing to my wife and kids is one of the worst things I can imagine.

“Struggle every day to be worthy of them.” “I would hasten to forgive her.” “… my duty, in love,… for the sake of the children.”

These beliefs reveal a rotten, fearful beta core. Yes, I said rotten. Rotten because they show a man who would sooner betray his masculine essence than face up to the truth of human nature, and in particular the amoral nature of women. Fearful because they expose his lack of faith in himself that he could go out and find another woman who would respect his sexual and emotional desires. Rod, here’s a news flash: There is no God, your wife is not a saint sanctified by your love, and she’s not worth your abject forgiveness no matter what she does. What Would Doormats Do? They would do like you say.

Rod, know this: If you discover your wife has cheated once, that means she has cheated hundreds of times. And she LOVED it. She LOVED taking the other man’s cock deep into her pussy, all the way up to the cervix, where the tip brushed with the depths of her womanhood and sent shock waves of pleasure through every inch of her body. Are you visualizing this yet, Rod? Good. Now that you have that image burning your retinas, let me explain to you what a real man does when he experiences the ultimate betrayal:

He dumps the whoring bitch.

No ifs, ands or buts. No appeals to your better angel. No clinging like a barnacle to societally useful concepts like duty, honor and forgiveness. No last ditch leaning on a supernatural being to credit your sacrifice with points toward fast tracking through the pearly gates.

You dump the whoring bitch.

Do you think it helps women… do you think it helps SO-CI-ETY… if all men acted in the honorable fashion you prescribe and forgive their cheating wives? What happens when you REWARD bad behavior? As a conservative, you should know. You get more of it.

And if it’s the children you’re worried about, there are alternatives to handing over your BALLS to a whore in utter, daily humiliation. You could work to change the ri-fucking-diculous divorce laws in this country so that when a wife cheats the children are automatically removed from her and remanded to your custody. Then guess what, Rod? You get the kids AND you get to be single again and chase some new, fresh skirt at Bible study. Trust me on this, Rod, new pussy is AMAZING.

That said, I honestly don’t know if I could live with myself if I were unfaithful to my wife, nor do I imagine myself capable of receiving her forgiveness. I know that is disordered, but were I to betray her, I’d also be betraying my children, and the thought that I had done such a thing to my wife and kids is one of the worst things I can imagine.

Words to projectile vomit to. So Rod would forgive his wife’s cheating, but he might kill himself if he ever cheated. Rod, go back to the visualization exercise I wrote just above. Read it again. Still think that the worst thing you can imagine is yourself cheating?

Jesus Castrati Christ, the main problem with the postmodern West is that so many men have forgotten they have a sack between their legs. And so many more, like Rod, are telling men with any sack left to lop it off for the Lord.

That said, I really don’t feel the least compelled to give up my high view of marriage and family.

That’s OK, with the sanction of the anti-male state, plenty will give it up for you.

We live in a time and place in which the integrity of the family is under constant assault, not least by an egotistical culture that exalts sexual pleasure and self-fulfillment, and casts aside ideals of fidelity and self-sacrifice for the greater good.

Hey Rod, who do you think is assaulting the integrity of the family?

I want my sons to grow up knowing that it is both good and honorable to see women as worthy of utmost respect, and the women they pledge fidelity to before God in the sacrament of marriage to be worth dying for, which is to say, worth living fully for.

What if the woman fucks around? Some women aren’t worthy of respect, either yours or your sons.

I want my sons to carry in their hearts a natural repugnance at the thought of infidelity, not so much because it offends God (though it does), but because it is a defilement of a covenant made in love.

Grand words, but why stop at your sons? Shouldn’t a man hold a cheating wife to the same standard? Or is her cheating not quite as repugnant? I suppose if you take the modern warped view of Christianity you’d find it easier to forgive the dear darling pedestaled princess than to forgive yourself. You’re like one of those beaten cuckolded men who lash themselves mercilessly with the self-taunts “If only I had been there for her. It’s my fault she spread for another cock.”

And I want my daughter to think and feel the same way about marriage — that it requires sacrifice of one’s selfish passions, and the transformation of them into active love for one’s spouse and children — and not to settle for a man who has a lesser view.

The best way to teach your daughter this lesson is to leave your wife should she ever cheat on you. Oh, and it’s probably not a good idea to inculcate an aversion to settling. Family gatherings take on a dark pallor when your daughters and sisters attend as aging cougars.

By the way, don’t think for a minute your marriage will ever be the same after your wife is caught cheating. Unless you have the fortitude and willpower to dump your bad beta habits for a good alpha attitude adjustment, your wife, no matter how penitent, will never tingle in her gina for you ever again. And lest you nurse ignorance about this, a gina tingle is the only moral code that women subscribe to. So really, if you want to enjoy the pleasure of a loving, sexually avaialable wife into your dotage, you have only two options when confronted with infidelity: Leave her, or learn Game.

and how important it is to get it straight in your head from the beginning that once you marry, and especially once you marry and have children, your life is no longer your own.

Yet another reason to not get married.

But breaking a family through infidelity and divorce is a deep wound, and always an occasion of the most profound sorrow.

Admonitions of sorrow are such a beta giveaway.

That’s not how it is with us these days. To quote C.S. Lewis on our moral state, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful.”

C.S. Lewis’ words are pointed like a dagger straight at your own beta heart, Rod.

What I can’t get straight in my head, when it comes to marital infidelity, especially when children are involved, is the difference between mercy and cheap grace.

Mercy is for closers.

***

The voting begins:





Comments


  1. FRIST!!

    Like


  2. As much as I’d like to metaphorically pile on Lady cumstaine (not physically—she and cuntrag can go start their halfhearted dyke lives together)—the billionaire loses.

    He’s been publicly castrated MORE THAN ONCE and still comes back to her. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.

    Like


  3. on June 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm Willard Libby

    Anonymous – FRIST!!

    Bill Frist?

    Like


  4. Had to vote for Dreher cause I can’t stand that guy. Jonah Goldberg’s review of Crunchy Cons had it right:

    “But the basic problem with crunchy conservatism — much like Andrew Sullivan’s various attempts to create some new political movement out of his own random collection of biases and convictions — is that it is narcissistic. Rod extrapolates from his personal preferences and priorities an entire branch of conservatism. When he hears from other confused readers that they too like whole grain bread and home schooling, he assumes he’s found a new trend. Thus he casts about for, and finds, a bunch of social conservatives who live crunchy lifestyles and assumes they are intellectually distinct from other social conservatives (and he overlooks the fact that many, many “crunchy” rightwingers are in fact libertarians). Crunchy cons vote Republican, read traditional conservative books, even listen to Rush Limbaugh, but because they live according to Rod’s personal definition of the good life, they must represent something different and intellectually unique. Well, they are only unique if you think footwear and eating habits are very, very important, or if you think “Frankenesque” stereotypes are valid. I don’t.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200603020807.asp

    Like


  5. […] This post was Twitted by MaharajahSex […]

    Like


  6. “Jodi Gordon tried to avoid the limelight after she was linked to a cocaine-fuelled bender with a Kings Cross bikie.”

    This just made me miss Sydney nightlife.

    Kings Cross. Now that is a great party neighborhood.

    Drugs, hot girls snorting blow, no last call, hookers, and hoods.

    Good food too.

    A real warzone.

    I fit right in.

    I wish I was going out there tonight.

    We need to create more of these places in America.

    – MPM

    Like


  7. on June 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm Richard Hoste

    Dear Roissy readers: Alphas, Betas, Omegas, AFCs, etc.

    I think you may enjoy my blog, particularly this article.

    http://hbdbooks.com/?p=89

    Like


  8. askjoe

    “a billion dollars and I sure as shit wouldn’t be in a relationship with a crack whore.”

    Who said anything about crack?

    I think she was doing beaks.

    The real crime is being in a relationship at all.

    She is actually decent:

    News just in: Most fly girls do some drugs at some point of their life.

    What he should do is not worry about it and swoop tons of girls at the same time.

    Like your humble author.

    – MPM

    Like


  9. I agree with G, a billionaire should not be at the whim of a druggie, albeit hot, slut.

    He should be swooping dozens of these girls nightly.

    Like


  10. @ G Manifesto

    “no last call”

    amen.

    Like


  11. Why are you bringing some random ex of mine into your post? I don’t see why this is hard for you to grasp. He and I = Best Friends. He and I don’t have a sexual OR romantic relationship. Not for over a year.

    Hahahaha, SkankyRaine doesn’t even see that her disclaimer makes him look even more beta than Roissy already did!

    “Best Friends” with a woman (let alone an ex)? BETA.

    Like


  12. Us provincial types, G, often get confused by the big-time use of recreational narcotics and uptown lifestyles of people in Brioni suits and a bucket of E-tabs, but her use of coke is one thing…her partying with a bunch of thugs to acquire said coke is another.

    But I understand, girls who “party,” prefer to party with guys that have the right pharmaceutical supplies. Coke is the great equalizer, but they’re still crack whores. Everyone likes the slutty party girls but you don’t marry them. House had a good quote.”Slutty party girl is fun until she pukes on her shoes — then she’s just a pain in the ass.”

    Like


  13. I had to vote for Dreher, though – the guy that says he would hasten to forgive a cheating wife is pathetic, and not just because such a proclamation undoubtedly got her thinking, “hmmmm, so I have a license to cheat, do I?”

    Like


  14. Dreher by a yard. There’s something wrong with a guy who refers to himself as a “crunchy con.” WTF does that mean anyway? Go look at his wakipedia entry. Methodist->Catholic->Orthodoxy. Doubtless his politics will eventually look the same. The man is privileging fatuous bullshit like organic gardening and being “hip” as being the wave of the “conservative” future? He’s just a SWPL wannabe with a slightly different background. A few years of “personal evolution” and he’ll be a Unitarian cuckold.

    Billionaire boy at least knows his sperm spitoon’s behavior is unacceptable, and he’ll eventually do the right thing.

    Also; Roissyism in the zeitgeist:
    http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/articles/hookup-hurt

    Like


  15. Dreyer is speculating about his reaction to possible adultery, not experiencing it. Clearly R.Stokes wins for all the reasons listed. Lord, and get a proper stylist. No way L.R.’s bff makes it.

    These two are priceless:
    Antonio Eunuchio
    Jesus Castrati Christ

    Like


  16. I’m gonna sit this one out.

    This month’s edition is too weak to even cast a vote.

    Still like the series though.

    Like


  17. Also, pro-tip of the day:

    If you have troll on your site, don’t feed it.

    Like


  18. I voted for ther Aussie beta. He forgives real adultery, while Dreher forgives a hypothetical one.

    And LR’s Italian Beta might be a figment of her imagination, for all I know.

    One note about Dreher: he has a track record of making these exhalted confessionals on every subject, from his changing religious affiliations, to immigration. The exhibitionism of his writing writing makes me cringe.

    Cruncy Con is not bad if it’s a Guns & Land “back to the roots” kind thing. But I suspect that in Dreher’s case it’s the same old hippie liberalism with a thin veneer of Jesus over it.

    Like


  19. carl sagan:
    Also, pro-tip of the day:

    If you have troll on your site, don’t feed it.

    funny, i don’t remember you hounding people for feeding the ubertroll david alexander for the past two years on this blog.

    now i wonder why that is?

    Like


  20. You should have a contest to choose the worst bitch of teh month…based on looks.

    Like


  21. Holy smokes Roissy, you really laid into Rod! I remember him from his NRO days. Good writer, though he always did have the whiff of Ned Flanders coming off his articles…

    After reading his actual post though, it’s hard to not see the beta earnestness/fear in his eyes why you look at his byline photo. (What is it about Catholics and their love of guilt?)

    I voted for the Australian billionaire. The weakness is STRONG in him.

    Like


  22. Dreher seems to be a really good guy, and solid on just about every political and social issue that really counts. (He is far preferable to that lightweight teeny con Jonah Goldberg, or any of the other leftover stooges and morons still manning the once venerable helm of the National Review.) Dreher can, and usually does, do a lot better, so that’s what made this particular blog posting particularly galling. Social conservatives seriously need to get over their princess complex.

    BTW Mrs. Dreher is quite cute in a nerd girl kind of way. By all indications, she would also seem to be extremely unlikely to cheat, so Dreher can afford to indulge his full betaness on this. Others, however, cannot, so his attitude cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged.

    Like


  23. askjoe

    “Everyone likes the slutty party girls but you don’t marry them.”

    The truth.

    I was recently looking through one of those well known “party pics” websites.

    It is staggering how many girls I have swooped on there. Most were on there getting naked.

    America just doesn’t have good girls anymore.

    (That being said, I stay away from small towns in America like the HIV. But I doubt they are much better.)

    I see the only option for a relationship is to wait it out till you are mad older then settle down with a couple of fly latinas in a South American beach town.

    That is what I have planned anyway.

    – MPM

    Like


  24. wrt #3:

    christianity, often more so than others, can be a straight slave religion. it’s one of the reasons that blacks are among the most religious americans. it’s sad really.

    Like


  25. I’m over the LR angle too – I understand she can serve to demonstrate a point or two, but you’re giving her more validation than her worn out ass deserves.

    Any maxim which could be demonstrated by using one of her posts could be better illustrated as hypothetical, and not feed the kvetching bitch’s ego.

    Like


  26. Oh and Number 1, far and away.

    Like


  27. But I suspect that in Dreher’s case it’s the same old hippie liberalism with a thin veneer of Jesus over it.

    People are always accusing paleocons of being crypto-leftists. Don’t believe the hype.

    Like


  28. “All that matters is the fact that Antonio Eunuchio does slave work for you and gets nothing in return but your annoying flapping gums”

    Couldn’t pick any other Italian sounding name Roissy?

    For the record: I would NOT have anything to do with lady stain.

    Like


  29. but you’re giving her more validation than her worn out ass deserves.

    deservin’s got nothing to do with it.

    Any maxim which could be demonstrated by using one of her posts could be better illustrated as hypothetical, and not feed the kvetching bitch’s ego.

    she serves a useful purpose. shitting on her gives me pleasure.

    Like


  30. on June 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm Sebastian Flyte

    That Lewis quote undermined his whole argument… why did he include it.

    Like


  31. antonio:
    Couldn’t pick any other Italian sounding name Roissy?

    lol. don’t take it personally, i just needed an italian sounding name that rhymed with eunuchio.

    Like


  32. well it’s your boat, we’re all just passengers.

    Like


  33. on June 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm snatch magnet

    “worship the floor-length dangle of your labia”
    That, my friend, is an epic line. Huzzah!!

    Like


  34. paleocons of being crypto-leftists

    Paleocons are Right on religion and “blood & soil” issues. Some are Left on economics, in that they support some degree of socialism or regulation of commerce.

    Like


  35. Billionaire by a mile.

    We don’t make enough of the betatizing effects that the Church has on men.

    http://chuckross.blogspot.com/2009/06/rise-of-church-betas-will-to-power.html

    The church’s doctrines have long been tools to undermine the power of strong men for the sake of weak men, women, and children. the church’s policies (the institution of marriage, monogamy, rules against cousin marriage etc) have paved the way for many socialist economic policies like the income and estate taxes that hurt the strong relative to the weak.

    the church also hurls the virtue of chivalry towards women to the top of the heap. the underlying current of church teachings have indoctrinated men much more, with much more damage, than the effects of many of the liberal policies we abhor here.

    Like


  36. tough choice. both #1 and #3 are particularly harmful because the example they give. as others said #2 may be imaginary and even if true he is harming himself only.

    given that, #1 has choices that #3 do not therefore he is the greater beta

    Like


  37. I only have one ex that I’m NOT still friends with. That’s not “Beta” that’s normal adult behavior. At least in my (apparent) MagicLand.

    And they all come over and do shitty household jobs for you?

    It is NOT “normal adult behavior” to have other adults (especially ones you’re not banging) come over to your house and cook and clean for you. Normal adults perform these tasks for themselves, or pay a stranger to do it, they don’t cozen some so-called friend into doing it for them. Indeed, anyone who asks you to cook and clean for them for FREE (no money or pussy as a reward) is NOT your friend.

    Like


  38. betatizing effects that the Church

    Sometimes. But religion can also have a focusing effect on men’s energies.

    Like


  39. Wow. 3 winners. It’s a hard choice but it’s gotta be the lame billionaire. Voted.

    Even if you win, you lose.

    Like


  40. on June 30, 2009 at 4:11 pm Gunslingergregi

    Billionaire but I am thinking he has more going on in his life than just the one chick. She probably keeps it interesting for him by putting his name out there for something. Then he does go and bang some other woman while she is in another room or he makes her watch either or.

    Like


  41. on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 pm Gunslingergregi

    lr’s friend probably saw the boy was malnourished and is not doing it for lr but is doing it for the kid as some kind of public service in his mind to get his foot in the door for the kid to have some sort of father figure.

    Like


  42. 1. Religious guys with genuinely religious wives do have more leeway to indulge in beta sentimentality. Religious communities tend to subject female misbehavior to shame and loss of status, so a lot of religious guys will coast.

    2. Religious guys also tend not to have much intimate experience (either sexual and otherwise) with any women except those who are most likely to be good girls, and they correspondingly form their notions of feminine nature from that highly skewed sample. For example, at least in areas where religion isn’t a part of the general culture, such as the American South, there is almost zero overlap between the bar scene and the church. Women all put up a front and sluts are quite happy to put up a relatively decent face for society. There are tells, but most religious guys don’t have enough experience to pick up on any but the most obvious of them. Until you’ve actually dated women out in general society, you won’t have a clue as to what they’re really like.

    Like


  43. lr’s friend probably saw the boy was malnourished and is not doing it for lr but is doing it for the kid as some kind of public service in his mind to get his foot in the door for the kid to have some sort of father figure.

    BETA.

    An alpha cares about his own children, not the product of some other man’s squalid liaison on the bench of an F-150.

    Like


  44. party pics” websites

    those devilish websites serve only to feed the investigative tendencies of women against the interests of cheating men

    never, i mean never in my whole partying life, of roughly 10 years, I heard about a girl appearing in one of those sites while she was supposed to be at home. girls never fall in that trap

    on the other side, it happened about once a month during college, and maybe once every six months since then, that a friend -or me….-would bve caught by those sites in places we weren’t supposed to be

    Like


  45. on June 30, 2009 at 4:18 pm Cannon's Canon

    I voted for Mr. Eunuchio, who needs a slap. The candidates did seem a bit weak this month. The blogger uses his religion as a basis for his logic, which makes his argument way more salient to others than anything on the feministing boards. His eloquence should not catapult him past any of that site’s male posters; they are what they are. The billionaire with the cheating fiance hardly strikes a chord with me. The women in his social circle are clearly off in their own Gossip Girls fantasy land (a show that I have never watched). I would venture to guess that his fortune was inherited rather than earned; he lacks the cutthroat instinct that led Allen Iverson to throw his wife out onto his front lawn, ass-naked, and lock the door behind her.

    My days of female “best friends” were the insecure, beta days of my youth. I can’t even stomach reading contemporary books by women, fictional or essay. My female friends today are for networking/social proof, emotional support, and perhaps an ego validation. The Ladder Theory underlies all such relationships.

    On another note, this excerpt seems almost too good to be true:

    It invokes the names “Biting Beaver” and “Dworkin,” though who knows the real source? The author’s logic is that every male masturbatory orgasm from porn “solidifies their hatred and superiority over women.” It seems too absurd to be a put-on.

    Like


  46. on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 pm Sebastian Flyte

    thursday makes some great points

    Like


  47. Oh, it’s the billionaire. Even though, as noted, he’ll probably have no choice but to do the right thing. The original article even hinted that he was about to dump her.

    re #2, i just think roissy wanted an excuse to repost his epic anti-LR flame from the comments section to a more prominent location. it was pretty inspired.

    #3 is just kind of pathetic – wound up in book-learned ideas, abstracted copipes of real-life issues and concepts. typical of the punditocracy.

    @GMan- so, on that subject, tell us how the Aussie fly girls you’ve swooped are different from their US or UK counterparts …?

    Like


  48. The Aussie gets my vote: He’s not married and doesn’t have kids with her. He could literally kick her to the curb with no financial/custodial reprocussions. He’s a billionaire and could of course have another pretty woman. A real man would never let a girlfriend humiliate him publically for a second time at the very most, most would be outta there after one embarrassment.

    A biker? Drug conviction? Suspended sentence?
    Wymyn, overindulged children that they are, dont see that the very moorings of civilization get caught in a tugboats pull when they do this.

    If men literally chased street prostitutes and offered to marry them instead of refined, classy, educated, pretty ladies………………..then some of the females might finally understand why chasing dregs like bikers offfends the law-abiding guys that make the world go around so blisteringly much.

    If hot women with good upbringings reward biker criminals with pussy…………………..then eventually men will have to ape the manner of biker criminals, which leads to an utter dystopia. Its amazing women are so short sighted as to not see this.

    If Elizabeth Stanton could come back to life and see such women, the suffragette movement might have never have taken place. They were better off with Victorian era rights if they wish to behave so irresponsibly. I can’t tell you what a male equivalent would be, but if corporate studs were proposing marriage to illegal alien day maids instead of office-girl-bitchy-lawyer-cunts, the ladies might have a fraction of a clue.

    Dreher, like Ross Douche-hat (and even worse, faux conservative David Brooks, a phony-leftist organ-grinder-monkey-conservative who is beneath contempt), is trying to not appear too radical, but he just doesn’t get it. When one party is free to commit adultrey with no financial/custodial ramifications, they are sure to end up doing so. If women can cheat and still keep the kids (and get child support), thats what they will end up doing. If the laws were fair……………………….men could cheat just the same, but of course wymyn would carp to high heaven about this.

    I really really really wish we had a two tiered marriage in America.
    You should be able to obtain a “traditional marriage” and a “modern marriage” of true equality that stipulated no child support, no alimony in the event of a divorce, and enforced joint custody. “Equal” marriage is what I’d call it.

    Like


  49. on June 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm jonathanjones02

    Thursday is right about Dreher. I say anyone that tries to bring Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk into mainstream political and social conversations deserves a pass. That post, while “beta,” has its sentiment right: the family is the most important institution we have, by far.

    The clear answer to this vote is the Australian. A real life Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight, pining over a woman who doesn’t deserve it.

    Like


  50. Cannon, the fact that that woman cannot understand why her son wants pornography and how her insipid trite self-pitying man-hating illogical philosophy cannot wean him from that on which he is hard wired makes me realize what a delusional bitch she is, how little empathy she has for the opposite gender, and why she is a feminist: she cannot understand men.

    Also makes me think her “abusive” husband wasn’t abusive at all, but merely acted like a man, which, in her warped world, constituted abuse.

    Like


  51. Some are Left on economics, in that they support some degree of socialism or regulation of commerce.

    No, the only really “left wing” policies that paleocons tend to support are certain limitations on free trade, foreign investment, and multinational corporations. They tend to strongly favour free enterprise, but within smaller, local entities.

    And it’s hard to argue that large scale corporations aren’t just as much responsible for propagating the PC, multi-culti, feminist dogma we have now as the media, big government, and academia.

    Like


  52. the church’s policies (the institution of marriage, monogamy, rules against cousin marriage etc) have paved the way for many socialist economic policies like the income and estate taxes that hurt the strong relative to the weak.

    Uh, it’s called civilization. I’m sure we’d all like to live in a Ghenghis Khan world.

    Like


  53. on June 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm jonathanjones02

    “Paleocons” tend to support the small, the local, the organic community, ect. – against big government, big business, trans-nationalism, big labor, and so on. They are right to point out the many times when all of those groups get in bed together to further the NYC-DC axis of Power for the Great and Good. Dreher’s critiques of such deserve attention and respect, regardless of other posts.

    Like


  54. It’d actually be an interesting post to see opinions on how to interact with ex’s.

    I don’t talk to any of them, save the longest one – and even she’s a once a month at most person.

    Like


  55. That post, while “beta,” has its sentiment right: the family is the most important institution we have, by far.

    Too bad Rod’s whole “men have a total obligation to women, women have zero obligation to men” thing is exactly the wrong way to go about preserving the family.

    Like


  56. on June 30, 2009 at 4:34 pm Willard Libby

    Chuck – We don’t make enough of the betatizing effects that the Church has on men.

    Religion attracts perverts. I don’t know why.

    Which comes first – the church or the betas? It’s chicken and egg.

    Like


  57. R had a post about how the Church is abandoning beta-males (and another also acknowledging that protestant beta-ism was the source of making this country the strongest, more prosperous, etc.). It’s one thing for most men who are prosperous enough to live through such things like a cheating wive’s divorce, but this may be a reason why Islam is growing so fast among the poor, it gives beta males (or at least non-alpha types) some control over their women instead of being victimized by them. I would like to think that traditional Christian marriage dogma also offered likewise protection for the female, just so it wasn’t all one-sided like Islam.

    And yeah, as Z was saying, why wouldn’t a woman – absent her own personal morals and whatnot – cheat with the hawt biker dude if her idiot husband would still have to finance her for the rest of her life. Let the gays and the SWPL have their “I’m a pretty princess” style $100K committment ceremonies and let the rest of us have real marriages back. or there’s game for the dudes who can do it.

    Like


  58. Roissy, don’t know if you have seen this, it’s an article in the Atlantic by Sandra Tsing Loh, about cheating on and divorcing her husband. It’s worth a look, pretty chilling-

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce

    It really has to be the billionaire. Having money just gives you so many more options, there is no excuse.

    Like


  59. No, the only really “left wing” policies that paleocons tend to support are certain limitations on free trade, foreign investment, and multinational corporations. They tend to strongly favour free enterprise, but within smaller, local entities.

    That’s basically what I was saying about paleocons but I wasn’t very clear about it.

    And it’s hard to argue that large scale corporations aren’t just as much responsible for propagating the PC, multi-culti, feminist dogma we have now as the media, big government, and academia.

    Very true.

    Like


  60. “What I can’t get straight in my head, when it comes to marital infidelity, especially when children are involved, is the difference between mercy and cheap grace.”

    Mercy is forgiveness for those who have not earned it.

    Like


  61. thursday:

    the church has ceded power from the strong because that’s who they had to compete against to gain the amount of power they have today.

    overall, marriage benefits beta males more than anyone else in society, and it is those men that helped the church survive throughout the ages.

    as has always been said, religion is good for keeping the masses in order.

    its not necessarily worse than the alternative, but we spend a lot of time here talking about what has caused the decline in the strength of men in our society (liberal society is always the culprit), but church indoctrination has something to do with it.

    i don’t believe in god or anything like that, but i am glad that many people do just as i don’t believe that marriage and family is our highest achievement although i’m glad that many people believe that as well.

    Like


  62. So, hating on the beta-effect of the church on men (and ignoring that there are perverts everywhere) isn’t quite fair. Most men and women would hope hope being able to control their spouses against their weaker natures (keeping a man married to his wife after she hits the wall and keeping a women from getting knocked up by G-manifesto).

    Game is a response to the breakdown of these traditional family forces. From what I understood.

    Like


  63. yeah, if the billionaire had no game, he could at least permanently rent at least a few hookers/porn stars to be his kept sluts.

    betasizing for this haggish slut is the worst. Even worse than marrying Lady Cumstaine.

    Like


  64. *hope to have an institution able to…*

    Like


  65. on June 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm the Ugly Truth

    For your information, the billionaire dumped the cheating GF. Probably not long after the biker incident, although he did not make it public. So I don’t see strong evidence for betadom there.

    Dreher is not talking about anything he has done or experienced. He can imagine all he wants. It’s one thing to imagine he would forgive his wife if she cheats; it’s another to do it. And she probably won’t cheat, anyway, because she is too upright/uptight to cheat, and/or he is not beta enough.

    A very weak line up, Roissy.

    Raine’s cleaning and cooking tool gets my vote.

    Like


  66. “but this may be a reason why Islam is growing so fast among the poor, it gives beta males (or at least non-alpha types) some control over their women instead of being victimized by them.”

    it’s my understanding (I think it was agnostic who posted a very good piece over at gnxp a long time ago) that much of islam’s control of women stems from their relative polygamy in society. to protect their harem of women from the seduction of less socially dominant men, relatively strong men (in terms of harem number) have invoked the use of burkhas and strong laws against male/female interaction.

    islam has successfully convinced those weaker males that they should abide by those laws in order to get to heaven. what explains the fact that they induce suicide bombers to kill themselves for the cause with the main attraction being 70 virgins in heaven?

    Like


  67. Tommy,

    With ex girlfriends, either use ’em as fuck buddies, social proof or cease any contact if the first 2 options are unavailable. Simple.

    Like


  68. Chuck, I understand that polygamy leaves a lot of single young (and therefore stupid, angry, and potentially violent) men without women because the women are collected by the older and more successful guys. Having a bunch of single dudes hanging out with no access to women is bad (another religion full of perverts, communism, has done the essentially the same thing to Chinese society). But how prevalent is this now?

    Like


  69. Crikey. It’s a tie for me between the Italian Eunuch and Dreher. The Aussie Billionaire dumped the girl. His problem is he only attracts women out for his money anyway. Which is why he was hunting around actresses. I.E. more wealthy women.

    If a guy doesn’t want to commit adultery, don’t commit it. It doesn’t just “happen.” Stupid Dreher. About 90% of men are unattractive anyway to women, so that’s not a problem. If you are in the ten percent, keep it in your pants. Act extra dorky beta, that’s women repellent. I’ve used that on married women wanting a fling, believe me tap your inner dork and they’ll soon go away.

    A WOMAN’s tendency towards infidelity, however, is out of your control. Dreher might as well have said, “I’m not a real man, I have to settle for whatever leftovers I can get.” His sons are going to be sexless betas, angry and resentful and taking it out on women, for sure.

    I HATE Crunchy Cons. That Eunuch guy is awful too though. Geez. Though he does give me more ammo — generally a bad idea to cook for a woman, particularly if you are beta. Just don’t do it. Alphas? Sure. But not betas.

    LR — it’s base exploitation. You’re baiting these guys with the promise of sex and affection to do things for you. This is typical btw of most women. Who use their attractiveness to bait men into being their useful servants. By promising but never delivering sex/affection and exclusivity.

    Thursday — I have no doubt whatsoever that Dreher wrote that because his wife has consistently cheated throughout the relationship, and continues to do so. Why else would he bring it up? Why even think about it? Most men cannot even conceive of such a thing. I can’t find any other logical explanation. If his kids are not his, that would explain his beta-type expectations for his sons: i.e. sexless, loveless drones.

    Nerd girls often get far more male attention than 9-10 girls, and have more partners and promiscuous lifestyles. They are more “approachable” and don’t have as high standards. Often girls higher up the attractiveness scale will settle for brains/companionship over raw attraction, being approached by Guidos and Flatbillers 24/7.

    Paleos are indeed akin to Leftists. Share many of the flawed assumptions about original sin, isolationism, and so on. It’s why both Pat Buchanon and John Cougar Mellencamp preferred the US not fight WWII and negotiate/surrender to the Axis. Not identical but functionally equivalent.

    Like


  70. Every day I am more convinced that cultures with Protestant roots are ill equipped to deal with the realities of modern women. In many ways they’re responsbile for perpetuating the beta male and birthing feminism.

    In many Catholic countries divorce is frowned upon, men are free to keep mistresses, and there is healthier respect for sex roles.

    Like


  71. Candidate #1. Hands down.

    Why? Because he’s rich, and is dating a crazy, drug-addicted, slut. Sure, she’s incredibly attractive. But her attractiveness isn’t improving his status. In fact, she’s making him look worse; everytime she cheats or gets into issues with drugs, she makes him look like an idiot. These things are putting a strain on their relationship? They should have put an end to it long ago. In fact, it should have never even started.

    As for Candidate #3:

    “I want my sons to grow up knowing that it is both good and honorable to see women as worthy of utmost respect, and the women they pledge fidelity to before God in the sacrament of marriage to be worth dying for, which is to say, worth living fully for.”

    I think this is very important. Rod isn’t talking about the behavior of his sons here, he’s talking about the behavior of women. What he’s hoping for for his children is that they find women that are completely amoral, that also are Christians, that are worth their time. He’s saying not to commit unless that woman is WORTH DYING FOR; this is very good advice. If people took marriage this seriously, then maybe there would be fewer divorces.

    As it is, I do find it appalling that Rod would forgive his wife for cheating; however, I do believe that actions speak louder than words. What he says he WOULD do and what he actually DOES may be two entirely different things. Canddiate 1 proves himself to be a beta male from the way he acts. Furthermore, candidate 3 probably takes comfort in saying things because chances are, his wife won’t cheat.

    I’d also like to add that the forgiveness of adultery is a fairly Christian trait. I know people (both male and female) who say the same thing; these are people who despise divorce. now, if, heaven forbid, such an incident arises, I wonder if they would do what they say they would and forgive.

    Like


  72. whiskey:

    you don’t give buchanan enough credit. he merely pointed out that world war 2 got rid of hitler who killed 6 million jews, but it paved the way for stalin, pol pot, mao, castro who killed 10s of millions.

    history has only looked at world war 2 through what it allowed to *not* occur (extermination of jews and spread of nazism) not what it *did* allow to occur (communist death camps, vietnam, etc.)

    the diff b/w buchanan and mellancamp is that mellancamp wouldn’t have wanted to combat the soviet problem whereas buchanan probably would have.

    Like


  73. #3 is probably making some also-married Jezebel in his congregation tingly with lust, and he’s written himself a nice over-the-top cover. #1 is still wealthy, and hasn’t married the trollop yet. #2’s your loser, I mean, winner.

    Like


  74. on June 30, 2009 at 5:05 pm the_alpha_male

    With ex girlfriends, either use ‘em as fuck buddies, social proof or cease any contact if the first 2 options are unavailable. Simple.

    I use them as social proof.

    Like


  75. In many Catholic countries divorce is frowned upon, men are free to keep mistresses, and there is healthier respect for sex roles

    the Catholic Bashing crowd is unable to see reality before their eyes. the Church benefits betas and allows alphas all the freedom they need provided they keep a low profile and repent in old age.

    it amazes me that until now no one has linked the subprime bubble to the Catholic roots of hispanics.

    Like


  76. Famines are feature, not a bug, of totalitarianism. But don’t frown on WWII because Pol Pot and Mao and whichever Ethiopian warlord was responsible for the famines of the 80’s (Stalin starved the Ukraine before WWII) because nowadays we should all know the evils of that system and we are still trying to keep people from advocating for it.

    Like


  77. Thursday — Pure bunk on religious girls in the South. Practically ALL of them will be on the bar scene picking up guys. WHEN they latch on to a keeper, be they Catholic (New Orleans, LA) or Protestant (Atlanta, Mobile, Jackson MS) they’ll forgo the bar scene. But they’ve already been heavily invested in it.

    BOTH Catholics and Protestants in the South will indulge (both sexes mind) in pretty much all indulgences of the flesh, and seek forgiveness later. Any religious guy in the South will see the same girls in the bar that he sees in Church. Probably fool around with most of them. You would not believe the booze hurricanes that break out.

    Is it different in the West and NE? In the West at least I can say yes. Or at least, SoCal and SF. There, Church attendance is spotty, confined to Mormons and “soft” (Rick Warren) evangelicals. Mormons do a better job of constructing a separate, civil society parallel to the mainstream society, including a lot of Church functions that provide socializing just to prevent that behavior (Ex-Mormon girls were the most wild and promiscuous I’ve ever met). Soft Evangelicals tend to do the same things as they do in the South, aided by urban anonymity, i.e. guys in Church don’t see them in the bars, spread out as they are. I have no experience of girls in the NE.

    Like


  78. Whiskey, you can’t read.

    Like


  79. on June 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm Sebastian Flyte

    A part of Dreher’s angst is a kind of beta-male jealousy at those who have more expansive sex lives. He betrays himself in this Mark Sanford takedown, which seethes with envy:

    “Oh, what an exciting life. Jet-setting, kibitzing with the GOP nominee, and then a little epistolary nightcap with his mistress. This man is not worthy of his wife or his three boys. “

    Like


  80. @gig:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31407037/ns/us_news-faith/

    You may have heard of it, but it was a scandal regarding a Catholic priest and his girlfriend. They are now wed and he’s turning to the Episcopalian church.

    Catholicism is a bit ridiculous. At least in Protestant churches, pastors and preachers can get married.

    Also, God forgives everyone. It’s not just about the Catholic church and repentance, if you confess your sins to God, you will be forgiven. Just an fyi.

    Like


  81. I vote #3. Crunchy Con?! No self respecting man gives himself a nickname that sounds that fucking gay.

    Like


  82. The Catholic church is led by a bunch of beta males (sexually speaking). To usurp the underlying social power structure, they have forced tithing as a means for non-clergy to maintain good grace in the eyes of the church and, as a result, proper society. Look at Silvio Berlusconi. Most alpha man in the world, yet he may be toppled by the Church because he likes to bang younger women. So the Catholic church does *not* turn a blind eye to infidelity when it applies to Big Men.

    The clergy of the Catholic church are similar to feminists. Both sought out the best avenue to power. Fems, ugly women or lesbians, couldn’t hold sway through traditional means, the womb or the cradle (because men didn’t want to bang them or because they wouldn’t reproduce). Likewise, the clergy pushed their doctrines on the masses because it gave them power that they wouldn’t have in normal society (through reproducing heirs, marrying, or starting businesses and becoming rich.)

    Also, beta males who have adopted feminist doctrine are merely employing a strategy to fall into the good graces of women. They can’t compete on physical levels with alpha men. They may not have the natural killer instinct of an alpha male either so they play their strongest hand, they listen, empathize, coddle, and get infuriated at injustice.

    Like


  83. Do you mean something like ‘Admissions of sorrow’?

    Like


  84. Chuck — Buchanon was an idiot because Hitler very nearly won. Without the US involvement, he would have won, and the Axis ruling the world would have been very, very nasty.

    Not merely the total extermination of the Jews from the Planet, but the conquering of the US by the combined forces of the Japanese and Nazis.

    Buchanon’s problem, is that of pretty much all Paleocons. They hate Jews (and thus love Hitler) more than they love their country. And they don’t learn from history. Hitler would have been a pinprick on history, and the problem of Stalin dealt with upon his death, if Hitler had been removed by a strong, armed, unilateral US in the early 1930’s. During the re-militarization of the Rhineland, or invasion of Czechoslavakia. War put off is often a war fought on more unfavorable terms. And our global interest was maintaining a stable, prosperous, pro-American/Western Europe.

    Getting rid of Hitler early, would have saved about half a million US casualties, and most of Europe’s infrastructure and critical resources, allowing a US-Britain-France-Germany-Poland alliance to counter the USSR, and weaken Stalin, who had to fear military build-ups as alternative power centers to his rule.

    As it was, Stalin’s actual demographic strength was wasted in WWII, the demographic cratering is the result of 20 million dead Russians who never had kids. Most of the dead young men and women.

    Paleos like Liberals live in a fantasy land where the big ocean protects us from foreign influence and intervention. That was not true in Yorktown in 1781, or Washington in 1812, or NYC in 1993 and again in 2001. It’s inward navel gazing and narcism, both big problems with the West in general.

    Like


  85. Or, Thursday, you can’t write.
    ————-
    The billionaire dumped the girl’s ass shortly after this. He’s got some new chick IIRC.

    Like


  86. maurice

    “@GMan- so, on that subject, tell us how the Aussie fly girls you’ve swooped are different from their US or UK counterparts …?”

    Australian girls are far preferable to American girls.

    Way more hot ones, way cooler, better shape, respond better to Alphas.

    They are mixed up ethnically as well. (Before I went I was thinking they are mostly blonde).

    I have had good runs with UK girls as well.

    I would rank them:

    #1 Australian Girls
    #2 UK Girls
    #3 American Girls.

    – MPM

    Like


  87. Thursday–

    Some of your points are valid re why the heavily religiously inclined men often have views similar to what Dreher expressed, but the fact remains that those views constitute horrifically beta memes to let lose in society.

    Although I voted for the billionaire on reflection I tend to regret it. Dreher’s views are the dangerous ones. They’re the ones that are continuing to take hold more and more.

    The fact is that female adultery, far from being more forgivable than male adultery as he implies, traditionally has been and should remain or in feminist influenced circles once more again become FAR LESS FOREGIVEABLE.

    The reasons why are many. A cheating woman may well become pregnant by her lover, which puts a husband particularly if he already has a child by her in a terrible, awful position, in any circumstance, but particularly under the ri-fucking-diculous divorce laws in this country as Roissy put it. It therefore deserves maximum social scorn as a peventative. That used to work quite well, together with punishing divorce laws for cheating wives, when both were the case. Today female infidelity is soaring, particularly in younger fully feminist propagandized cohorts.

    Further unlike a cheating man, a cheating woman is very likely herself to decide to end the marriage, even if her lover won’t marry her. The very things that make some women less interested in casual sex with not emotional involvement in it, or feel cheapened and conflicted if they slut around anyway, makes most (not all) women tend to form strong emotional bonds with a new and exciting lover. Those also automatically lessen or break the romantic rather than friendship or partnership feels and urges she had for her husband. They may and probably have dulled over time anyway as a different agape bond has grown, but after a love affair, she will then typically back project that they’d gone far more than they really had before, but not after her affair began.

    She may not leave her husband immediately and may feeel real conflict and regret and wish to “try again to the make the marriage work”, but the chances of her sexual and romantic emotional attraction to her husband not being greatly harmed and diminished are poor. This is not true when men have extramarital affairs. They can even energize his sexual attraction for his wife, if she hasn’t gone completely to hell and isn’t a real harridan.

    Cheating men rarely want to leave their wives, as “other women” are regularly warned by their girlfriends. Instead under the influence and pressure of hyper American female craziness on the subject, it’s cheated on wives that typically end the marriage when it does end after a man’s infidelity.

    Men and women aren’t the same. One of the areas they are least the same is in their emotional reactions to casual sex particularly if they already have a strong love and sexual relationship.

    Female infidelity is FAR MORE SERIOUS AND SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY than male infidelity. The wisdom of the ages of nearly all civilizations is right. Feminists, with their Marxist sameness/equalist ideology are wrong.

    Dreher here is doing CLASSIC conservative white knighting and chivalry. It’s conservatives with views like these that allied with feminists against supposedly cad, “dead beat dads” to create our horrifically high and uncapped child support = stealth alimony divorce law “reforms” in the early 90s, and other aspects of divorce law “reform”. (E.g. ALL of a man’s accumulated wealth, no matter how exclusively it was he that earned it and no matter how great, is half his wife’s property on divorce, automatically, no matter what.) Dreher here is an absolute menace and needs vigorous smack down by clearer thinking and gender realist conservatives, moderates and anti dogmatists generally.

    The memes of beta #3, Dreher, are dangerous and destructive of our family and social fabric. The first two betas are merely chumps, with no particularly dangerous ideas, who most people will see that way without or with only a little Roissy thought help. Dreher’s ideas need vigorous smack down.

    Like


  88. whiskey:

    “They hate Jews (and thus love Hitler) more than they love their country.”

    Your penchant for overstatement is well-known, but geez. Buchanan loves hitler now?

    and i don’t think paleos hate Jews, they merely realize that a race (culture, country whatever the fuck) of 12 million? people have held sway over many of the world’s problems all throughout history.

    first off, you have a big “what if”. the problem is that the U.S. entered ww2 in 1941, after the time had come and gone to stop hitler’s march. what happened in the past was a sunk cost and nothing the u.s. did could have changed it. if we are talking about human casualty, the world may have been better off preventing the fall of eastern europe to the soviets. who knows what hitler would have done had he won the war, but buchanan is merely saying “watch out” when talking about the effects of war.

    another problem that people throughout history have failed to rationalize is “unintended consequences”. not everything is cut and dry, black and white. buchanan doesn’t hate jews, he’s merely stating that recent history seems to value the life of a Jew at ten times that of other people (6 million dead versus 60 million).

    Like


  89. I’d argue hands down that Beta #1 is probably the best candidate for Beta of the Month. There really isn’t any real overt reason for him to continue in any relationship with his girlfriend, and his money and power allows him access to women that he could easily pump and dump on a convenient basis*. Beta #2 is probably just a good friend with a good heart and a desire to feel useful to somebody, and Beta #3 is religious and ponders whether staying for the children is worth putting up with his wife’s infidelity, and his loyalties to his children should be celebrated.

    *Alphas don’t need porn. They can attract hot women, make them act and look like porn stars, and then have sex with them on their own convenience. In contrast, beta males can never have that luxury.

    Like


  90. on June 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm Cannon's Canon

    @lurker
    “what a delusional bitch she is, how little empathy she has for the opposite gender, and why she is a feminist: she cannot understand men.”

    Picture the stereotype of the reformed player who settles down and is “cursed” with daughters, knowing too well what awaits them. A more fruitful curse is a feminist having sons. She won’t see it coming.

    On the topic of gender degradation in porn, I have a fascinating counterexample. I am friends with a semi-feminist hipster girl who has openly confessed her newfound love of gangbang porn. Yes, the fantasy of being surrounded by dicks gets her off. This apparently trumped her previous gold standard of gay porn.

    I believe the Sex and the City women relaxed with a group gay-porn viewing. How sexist of them!

    Like


  91. the fact remains that those views constitute horrifically beta memes to let lose in society.

    I said as much, which is why I nominated him.

    Like


  92. @Cannon’s Cannon:

    “Picture the stereotype of the reformed player who settles down and is “cursed” with daughters, knowing too well what awaits them.”

    My father just sat me down and said,”Daughter, I can tell you everything you need to know about men in ten seconds: they only want sex. Okay, chat over.”

    And he got up and left.

    Like


  93. I couldn’t vote for the crunchy con – (a) nothing really happened, and what you say you think you’d do before it happens is all bs. He’s just as likely to beat her to death with a ballpeen hammer as anyone else selected at random if it really happens and (b) is he really is heavily religious, he has massive social pressure to go the whole forgiveness route (or at least to say he would do so when presented with hte topic in the abstract or hypothetical mode).

    I couldn’t vote for the billionaire – he is getting laid by a fairly hot one and isn’t married to her (yet).

    Antonio Eunuchio is playing domestic menial worker and not even getting laid by a rapidly-sliding-over-the-hill single mom.

    Like


  94. G-Man:

    That pic you posted of the Aussie party girl was hot.

    I think your assessment of her and playing w/her is about right too.

    She might in fact be a lot of fun.

    He’s the one who’s being a pussy. she’s not a good girl. She’s a bad party girl. If she’ll ever be a good girl it sure isn’t now. He’s nuts to have her as his fiance, but not necessarily to date her and dangle possibilities in front of her.

    He’s nuts to remotely commit to her and not be playing w/multiple hotties. Doesn’t have to do it at your frenetic volume but he does need to being doing it, if he’s going to play with this kind of party girl and not get chumped.

    Yeah he could just settle down with a good girl if that’s what he wants. She’s clearly not it though and most of all not it when she can wrap his good boy cuckolded self around her finger.

    Like


  95. Dreher ought to know better than to put a woman on a pedestal. He published a story about his grandfather being totally ripped off by a golddigging bitch.

    Page 33 of this pdf:
    http://www.loyolabooks.org/assets/fg_comp/PDF_96653.pdf

    The story also involves ghostly sightings, and Dreher getting completely suckered by a medium doing a “hot reading.”

    Truly a weird individual: an extremely superstitious, hyper-religious whiterperson. Nevertheless, he was actually one of the more interesting people at National Review (faint praise).

    For added amusement, he proves the effectiveness of dowsing:

    Like


  96. But consider with #3 is that he pre-selected his woman (one would suspect) to share his values. She’s probably saying the same thing…or something female to that effect. Doug does raise some good points, but if both couples share the same values and are happily pre-modern with their views on marriage (I may go to hell if I get divorced versus I get half at no-fault, no shame, and no guilt), she may have the old-school stick with it nature that the married for life Catholics had.

    Having #1 actually leave his crack whore does change the dynamics of June’s BotM. I am not invested in LR hate, so I don’t care if some goober cooks her dinner (albeit cleaning is the one service I will pay a woman for, so that boggles my mind), so #3 sort of falls into place, even though he may not be advocating something as insidious as doug states.

    Like


  97. “Oh, good. Reverend Lovejoy will make Marge take me back! He _has_ to push the sanctity of marriage, or his God will punish him!”

    Like


  98. @askjoe:

    “But consider with #3 is that he pre-selected his woman (one would suspect) to share his values. She’s probably saying the same thing…or something female to that effect”

    That’s exactly what I was thinking. He can say that and comfortably know that she won’t cheat on him, because judging by his serious views on marriage, he probably didn’t pick just anyone but someone who shares his exact views. Serious Christians only marry other Christians, and most Christians I know (both male and female) feel that adultery should be forgived and shouldn’t end in divorce.

    Like


  99. Whiskey’s laughable comparison of Buchanan/Sobran-esque paleocons to leftists must be him projecting. Neocons are just hawkish liberals who use jingoisms in addition to their usual race/gender baiting and class warfare.

    He must be a Zionist Jew, or some fundie who thinks Isreal has to be in the hands of the Jews for Jesus to come back.
    Go write another spam essay on how great phonies like Palin and John McAmnesty are, you dope.

    Like


  100. funny, i don’t remember you hounding people for feeding the ubertroll david alexander for the past two years on this blog.

    now i wonder why that is?

    My pro-tip goes out to feeding any troll.

    I don’t even read his posts so my knowledge of him is limited to the references you make in some of your blog posts.

    Like


  101. Whiskey,you’re full of shit! Acc to Buchanan,the guarantee to Poland that the Allies would go to war against Germany if they were attacked was what forced the start of the Unnecessary war. It should never have happened. Countless millions would have never died,and history would be very different. Maybe the White race wouldnt be dying off in Europe,nor our country inundated with tens,soon to be,hundreds of millions of Darkies. Does Buchanan hate jews? I dont know–but I sure do! You’ll note the 2 jews on the Supreme Court voted against the White men:Ruth Kaganovitch Ginsburg noting,idiotically, that the test was “biased”,the same horseshit lie they always use. i wonder if the tests that allow in jewboys to Harvard and Columbia are “biased”? To say that WWii was good because it saved the jews????? Thats insanity!Fuck those animals. THEY occupy ouir country now,and are intent on destroying it. In the unlikely event that your idiot scenario of Hitler conquering and occupying America(along with all of Europe and the entire USSR) came true–how could he be any worse than what we have NOW??

    Like


  102. I’m really interested in learning how to apply game when you’re a beta in a LTR. If it can revitalize a relationship, then great. But if also better prepares one for leaving a relationship, then awesome.

    Where does one start?

    Like


  103. You should read as much about this as you can.

    You’re not going to get it all in one sitting.

    Like


  104. doug1

    “He’s nuts to remotely commit to her and not be playing w/multiple hotties.”

    Yeah, I don’t understand why guys don’t understand this.

    Especially business people.

    The key to business is Leverage.

    The easiest way to get Leverage is to have multiple options.

    For instance: If you are selling a Picasso, the best way to get Leverage and get the best deal is to have Multiple potential buyers.

    Relationships between men and women are the only category in life where people think they should have just One.

    Imagine how shitty the place would be if you only had one option for Italian Food in your hood.

    Why not have tons of women?

    It makes the world a much brighter place.

    – MPM

    Like


  105. ok, G-man, what city in Australia should a guy visit?

    Like


  106. ok, G-man, what city in Australia should a guy visit?

    Perth has the best looking commuter rail units in the Anglosphere, while Melbourne has one of the largest tram/streetcar networks in the world, and Sydney features a deep comprehensive regional rail system. Brisbane has a decent network, while Adelaide has nothing but a cruddy streetcar line and a cheaped out diesel multiple unit network.

    Like


  107. askjoe–

    But consider with #3 is that he pre-selected his woman (one would suspect) to share his values. She’s probably saying the same thing…or something female to that effect.

    Another and maybe a better way of crystalizing my points on Dherer is just exactly that it’s HE that is making them as though women say the same thing all the time. But they DON’T. Dherer has it exactly backwards. It’s his wife, or at least leading female opinion journalists who should be saying just what he’s saying first and foremost.

    Instead these days they hardly ever do. It isn’t fashionable. Or it’s widely understood that women are against infidelity but in print at least it’s only fashionable for women to focus on male infidelity as being a problem, while rising female infidelity is almost (or by many feminist is) looked at as a salutary indicator of female “progress”. When do you hear women saying they should forgive their husband’s infidelity as a moral imperative, and would, and emphasize reigning in and preventing themselves from ever doing it?

    Like


  108. I went with Beta #1. Betas #2 and #3 are too common.

    Beta #3 Dreher is a religious man. While he isn’t in touch with reality, his views are extremely common and aren’t exceptional enough to be worthy of BotM. Besides, in his religious community, he can survive his Beta tendencies.

    Beta #2 is disgusting. But it’s also disturbingly common. A lot of women pick up omega orbitors who engage in blatantly 1-sided relationships. It’s common enough to be a stereotype- think of the nerdy guy who helps the hot girl with her homework but never gets anything from it. Think of the nice guy who acts as a girl’s counselors about all the bad boys in her life but never gets any. This situation is way too common.

    But for a billionaire to get played like that? That’s pathetic. We should expect more from him. He could get nearly any woman he wanted, and still has this happen to him. And he still can’t pick a hotter gold-digger. This man is an exemplar of beta cluelessness, and well dserves to be called BotM.

    Like


  109. only when they’re married to democrat politicians…

    Like


  110. doug
    Yeah, you nailed it. The first two are harmless examples of garden variety betatude that no one is tempted to emulate. Dreher is doing much harm by his preaching.
    Whiskey
    Buchanan and his Ilk are fundamentally wrong about the 3rd Reich but there is a problem with the notion that stopping Hitler in the 1930s would have been easy or even do-able. The problem is that it would have been virtually impossible to justify or made to work politically because the definitive crimes committed by the Nazis came only after the war started. Churchill was prescient but he had had very little luck convincing anyone of his view. Buchanan tries to blame Churchill for painting the 3rd Reich with such bad colors but he totally failed at doing that. It took Hitlers actions (after it was too late to stop him) to do that.
    Fascinating detail; until Kristalnacht there was always some Jewish immigration back into Nazi Germany. Essentially no one saw it coming. There is are just trace amounts of written commentary in that period that predicted the grim future vs. mountains that represented wishful thinking.
    So, how could the Anglosphere have justified a pre-emptive war – that, if successful would have eliminated from existence the historical proof of its necessity?

    Like


  111. askjoe

    “ok, G-man, what city in Australia should a guy visit?”

    I have only been to Sydney and Melbourne.

    I really only know Sydney and I would recommend.

    Dope Spot.

    I would live there for sure.

    That being said, I am sure Australia has plenty of other dope spots as well.

    – MPM

    Like


  112. David Alexander

    “ok, G-man, what city in Australia should a guy visit?

    Perth has the best looking commuter rail units in the Anglosphere, while Melbourne has one of the largest tram/streetcar networks in the world, and Sydney features a deep comprehensive regional rail system. Brisbane has a decent network, while Adelaide has nothing but a cruddy streetcar line and a cheaped out diesel multiple unit network.”

    I think he ment for girls and partying.

    Not the public transportation.

    – MPM

    Like


  113. Chuck, Buchanon wrote a book “American Empire” which argued that the US should have stayed neutral in WWII. He’s argued this consistently, and has made various anti-Semitic statements over the years, including comparing Zionism to Nazi-ism. He is well known as an anti-Semite. [I am not Jewish, for the record, nor Evangelical.]

    Johnny — the number of SWPL Jews is outnumbered vastly by non Jewish SWPL. Jews are middle-class suburbanites, and subject to SWPL-ism no less than anyone else. Their influence is vastly outnumbered by yuppie politicos like the Gores (soft post-Christian), the Kennedys (cafeteria Catholicism), the Pelosis (ditto), the Bidens (ditto), and non-White empire builders (Obama being the best known).

    Moreover, EVERY Western nation is dropping in population, including Western coastal China, Japan, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, places either non-White/European or untouched by WWII. It’s the natural outcome of technology: the pill, condom, urban anonymous living, and better living standards for women. Blaming Jews (few, demographically weak, outnumbered in the post-modern theorists by WASPs and Catholics by vast margins) is the sign of weak mind and mental moron.

    You lack the intellectual courage to see things as they are, relying on conspiracy theories ala Wright and Sharpton (who you resemble, as does Buchanon).
    ——————–
    After Hitler took power, everyone knew what he planned. Mein Kampf outlined ALL his aims and steps. Everything he wrote in his book, he did. War was inevitable, once he took power. He aimed to conquer France no matter what, so better to take the war on favorable terms (1934-1938) than unfavorable ones, and the longer Hitler had to re-arm, the worse the cost to the fight.

    Buchanon argues that isolationism and no defense budget will see us through. That was not true in 1781, 1812, or heck 1942-43 (when US shipping off the East Coast was sunk regularly). Buchanon is an idiot because ignores that naval power makes the Sea a highway, and modern weapons including nukes and delivery systems from shipping containers to ICBMs (even North Korea has them) negates geographic isolation.

    Both Buchanon and Cougar Mellencamp made the idiot suggestion that the US should have responded to Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of War with a negotiated surrender. That’s pure idiocy of two-of-a-kind. [The Left is as anti-Semitic as the Paleos. They are functionally the same, Buchanon merely a Farrakhan in White face.]

    Like


  114. @The G Manifesto

    Australians fatter than Americans: study

    http://bit.ly/aussiesfatterthanamericans

    Like


  115. Given Dreher’s completely unmasculine appearance, I would say it is a good likelihood that his wife will eventually cheat on him someday. I bet she thinks about other guys when he is fucking her–if “fucking” her is how she would describe it. Guys like that don’t make girls’ ginas tingle, as Mickey and Roissy say.

    BTW, does anyone have suggestion for great Alpha or Beta writers throughout the ages. Fitzgerald seemed to be a beta. What about Hemingway or Faulkner? Any ideas?

    Who are the great alpha writers, and who were the betas?

    Like


  116. Buchanon may be making some valid arguments about consequences of war, but claiming lives would have been saved had Britain/France not defended Poland?

    Hitler’s Mein Kampf laid out his policy and plans for attacking and getting “breathing room” for his Aryan race. Had Hitler defeated Russia –which, without Allied help on the Western front, was most likely—the Slavs would have perished as much as under him as under Stalin—-probably more.

    Stalin at least had use for the Slavs under his system—Hitler had none.

    Under the Aryan racial theory, the Slavs were no different than blacks or Jews, and just as worthy of being wiped out and having their land taken from them. So Hitler gaining Eastern Europe would have guaranteed death camps from Estonia to the Ukraine and beyond.

    And if he didn’t push further East to India—where the Aryans of the Upper Caste would have been spared at the expense of the Lower cast annihilation (Aryan racial theory–which has some truth in it wrt racial classification— held that Germans and upper caste Indians were of the same Aryan race–studies that genetic test seem to support).—Hitler certainly would have turned West and taken France and England, probably quite easily at that point.

    Buchanon’s argument that the west created the Nazis is quite true—the Treaty ending WW2 guaranteed a large class of angry Germans arising, just like the punishments under Reconstruction guaranteed anrgy Southern white response in the form of the Klan. But for Buchanon to say not fighting Hitler would have saved more lives is just plain in contrast to Hitler’s stated goals and plans.

    Like


  117. Johnny Ola

    Long before the invasion of Poland and the Allied response, the Nazis had made detailed plans for what to do in Poland after conquering it. These plans involved the mass killing of all school teachers and virtually all educated persons, Jewish or not. And so they did. Does not this ring some alarm bells with you?

    Like


  118. Rum —

    The inability to justify pre-emptive war was a function of women in politics, voting. Prior to widespread women’s suffrage, “peace activists” were marginal. Examples of pre-emptive Wars include the Spanish-American War, Mexican-American Wars, the Afghan Wars, Barbary Coast Wars, Zulu Wars, Boer Wars, and so on.

    Casualties would have been low, material losses even less, and Hitler gone very quickly as he had at the time significant enemies among the military, his own party, and the bureaucracy. However, correct there was no political will to do so, because women formed the peace movement and after WWI they had considerable power.

    Nevertheless, the power reality of Hitler’s aims and resources (Germany) trumped the political will of women (Women in France and the Netherlands staged their own, enthusiastic unconditional surrender to the German soldiers during Occupation, a tricky subject even today). Women often prefer foreign conquerors to their own men because it provides them for opportunities to “move up” and feeds their hypergamy. The greatest tragedy is that no politician had the political will to simply order the action, particularly during the Rhineland militarization, gamble big, and take his lumps if need be for the good of the nation.

    Like


  119. sorry—my last post should read the “treaty that ended WW1” not WW2.

    Like


  120. on June 30, 2009 at 7:03 pm Gunslingergregi

    Problem with american woman they treat their job like they should treat their man and treat their job like they should there man.

    Problem with american men. They treat there woman like their boss instead of like their subordinate.

    A person who does not have enough expected of them at work will quit.

    American men are not expecting enough out of their woman.

    Like


  121. Despite his earlier writings and his lurid speeches virtually no one foresaw the effects of Hitlers regime beforehand. If they did, they forgot to write it down. There are a few cases but they were not loud or influential.
    Churchill was very unpopular and marginalized before the Nazi grab of the remains of CzSlovakia.

    Like


  122. on June 30, 2009 at 7:05 pm Gunslingergregi

    Like the third guy he needs to expect more out of his woman than just that if she cheats he will forgive her. Good of the kids crap and needs to think about his good.

    Like


  123. The Aussie billionaire wins this month’s contents by a mile or… er… uh… 1.5 kilometers since he’s in Australia.

    What makes someone a true BOTM is beta-tude coupled with a very blatant denial or self-deception about it. Deep down, the true BOTM suspects or fears that he’s being had, that he’s being walked on, in short, that he’s beta. Yet he clings to, and very often professes, the complete opposite. He may even blame HIMSELF for the sad state of affairs and his wife’s/gf’s behavior. He lives in a fantasy where the truth is apparent to nearly everyone except himself and the parties getting some benefit out of the self-deception.

    Being taken advantage of and allowing one’s self to be walked on makes one beta. A response involving denial and self-deception about it moves one into full BOTM status.

    The Aussie billionaire fits this better than the others, hands down. The article says the Aussie’s woman he is/was with has shown a clear pattern of disrespect in the past. Yet this asset-rich but testosterone-poor weakling claims “we’ve all got to work”–as if he believes he himself has got the behavior problem. In truth, his only “work” here should be to send her a text message (not even a phone call) telling her to get lost. Kick her to the curb.

    Candidate #3 may sound sappy, but for all we know his wife carries the same or complimentary opinion. Sure, he’s setting himself up for a hard fall should his marriage not work according to his well-laid plans. But who’s to condemn their little slice of heaven? I’ve got a few friends (and their wives) who BOTH share complimentary views like this. Seems to work… for them.

    Like


  124. Roissy wrote:

    “…all the way up to the cervix, where the tip brushed with the depths of her womanhood and sent shock waves of pleasure through every inch of her body.”

    Funny. When I bang hard against her cervix, there certainly are shock waves alright. They go all the way up her spine, throughout every inch of her body, and are finally coincident with a loud, painful scream. Oooouuuchhhh!!

    Am I too big for you, baby?

    Like


  125. on June 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm Epoxytocin No. 87

    #3 sort of falls into place, even though he may not be advocating something as insidious as doug states.

    You don’t get it.

    In the circles in which #3 (Dreher) runs, his suggestions aren’t insidious at all.
    Do you know any of these type of people, in urban areas? In this day and age, there is basically NO pressure/impetus NOT to break away from these circles, so, the only individuals who remain within them as adults are a self-selected group. Pretty much all of them live, talk, and seem as though they basically have NO burning carnal desires.
    They may well not have any. At least none that are functional enough to cause trouble.

    Given this profile, and his age (on the cusp of the “old generation”), it is certain that Dreher has NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about the general nature of women outside his circles. This is what makes his suggestions as insidious as doug1 has intimated.

    Dreher’s advice is like hearing “It’s generally ok to leave dogs around babies” from someone who has never interacted with a dog other than a trained yellow Lab.

    Like


  126. on June 30, 2009 at 7:26 pm Virginia Gentleman

    jonathanjones02:

    It is kind of hard to kick Rod Dreher; his scraps with Jonah Goldberg were always fun to read. And who knows? Perhaps the mentality on display in his column works in the context of his marriage. Furthermore, I don’t know that he carries a lot of weight in commentary; the grand result of the Crunchy Con war seems to have been that he was marginalized.

    Beta Candidate #1, on the other hand, is not marginalized. He’s got plenty of money and status and therefore seems to have the ability to get women on demand. While not particularly an opinion leader, women will emulate this Jodi Gordon. She’s a minor celebrity and that sort of thing seems to have an influence—it should be met by her being figuratively kicked to the curb. That this seems to be the case would be to his credit.

    Like


  127. That line about leaving dogs alone with kids, pretty good. Don’t read Dreher, I prefer Robert S. McCain.

    Like


  128. on June 30, 2009 at 7:41 pm Epoxytocin No. 87

    Gent,

    It is kind of hard to kick Rod Dreher; his scraps with Jonah Goldberg were always fun to read. And who knows? Perhaps the mentality on display in his column works in the context of his marriage.

    Gent, he published his mentality.
    It’s like a toxin to which one particular household (his) happens to be immune. Publishing is like dumping that same toxin into a public reservoir.

    Like


  129. Rod Dreher, hands down.

    A man who says in advance that he would bend over backwards to forgive his wife’s adultery is a deep, deep beta — well into his core.

    Roissy’s words on Dreher were spot on. Dreher may not have influence, but what he wrote there revealed such a deeply beta persona, that it has to take the prize this month.

    Like


  130. RacerX–

    BTW, does anyone have suggestion for great Alpha or Beta writers throughout the ages. Fitzgerald seemed to be a beta. What about Hemingway or Faulkner? Any ideas?

    Who are the great alpha writers, and who were the betas?

    Interesting but somewhat complicated question.

    It’s easy to say that Hemingway was an alpha writer. That’s because he lived an alpha rakes life most of the time, and also celebrated alpha males of various kinds in his writing.

    it wouldn’t surprise me if Faulker wasn’t much of an alpha himself, but he did have an appreciation for them. Well for a lot of things. Same is true of Fitzgerald, actually.

    A great many great writers do appreciate the girl pulling power of the male alphas, but then denigrate them somewhat as being dangerous and bad for girls in the end. They often promote intellectual types that the writer himself identifies with, sometimes perhaps fairly accurately, sometimes in a rather idealized way that makes them seem more attractive to women than they’d probably usually be.

    However, it’s also the case that times change and have changed in the last 40 years radically in the West, particularly in the Anglosphere. Some things have always been hyper attractive to women. But some things used to work with them better than they often do now. Were writers who reflect this and deep insights into this being beta, if the same things wouldn’t / don’t work as well now?

    Like


  131. on June 30, 2009 at 7:53 pm Epoxytocin No. 87

    They often promote intellectual types that the writer himself identifies with, sometimes perhaps fairly accurately, sometimes in a rather idealized way that makes them seem more attractive to women than they’d probably usually be.

    I’ve read a couple of Dan Brown novels while stuck at airports, etc., and this is exactly what he does.
    Granted, the female characters in question are usually on the nerdy side, lending some epsilon level of believability to the plot, but, yeah, no.

    And no, I’m not putting Dan Brown on the same plane as the aforementioned authors.

    Some things have always been hyper attractive to women. But some things used to work with them better than they often do now.

    From the standpoint of raw attraction and pulling power, how true is this, really?

    Today’s LTR’s are basically an unrecognizeable species to past generations, but I think you’re overstating this transition in terms of the female hindbrain.

    Like


  132. “Serious Christians only marry other Christians, and most Christians I know (both male and female) feel that adultery should be forgived and shouldn’t end in divorce.”

    @Mandy! —

    Christians, including “serious” ones, divorce at the same rates as everyone else, actually.

    The Gospels provide adultery actually as the one acceptable ground for divorce (Matthew 5:32, 19: 8-9) because adultery, of course, violates the top 10.

    Dreher is a fool and misunderstands the nature of adultery. When a woman commits adultery, she has disrespected her husband and she knows that. If the husband rolls over and forgives her, most women — Christian or not — will see that as being weak, and will not respect their husbands for it. Instead they will disrespect them more for reacting that way. The women in Michelle Langley’s book pretty much all said the same thing: when their husbands were forgiving and trying to make things work after the affair, the wives found the behavior pathetic and it made them disrespect (and dislike) their husbands even more for being weak and unattractive.

    Dreher is out to lunch. His wife may be a Christian, but she’s also a woman. If an affair happens, Roissy’s perspective on it is much more accurate than Dreher’s — believe me.

    Like


  133. ACE

    @The G Manifesto

    “Australians fatter than Americans: study

    http://bit.ly/aussiesfatterthanamericans

    I don’t buy these “across the board studies”.

    It might mean something if you are blind and picking up girls to swoop on completely at random.

    If you put yourself in the right scenario, Australian Girls KO American girls in the first.

    – MPM

    Like


  134. @novaseeker:

    “Christians, including “serious” ones, divorce at the same rates as everyone else, actually.

    The Gospels provide adultery actually as the one acceptable ground for divorce (Matthew 5:32, 19: 8-9) because adultery, of course, violates the top 10.”

    A lot of people call themselves Christians, but aren’t really true Christians. >.>’

    I know. This is what confuses me, but most of my friends claim to hate divorce more than adultery. In my opinion, I couldn’t stay with someone that committed adultery. Even if I forgave him and tried to make it work, it wouldn’t be the same. The trust would be gone, everything would be gone. It’s just going to be a miserable marriage, and he’s probably going to cheat again. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

    Like


  135. on June 30, 2009 at 8:13 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Epoxy:

    Good analogy. I don’t, however, think that Mr. Dreher is quite as dangerous as a toxin in the public reservoir might be. Seriously, does anyone care what this guy thinks?

    That isn’t to say that his mindset isn’t dangerous—it is. However, the actions (and apparent forgiveness) of the media heir were more damaging. Mrs. Dreher hasn’t run around yet; this Gordon woman had. I agree that she isn’t unattractive; the fact that she hadn’t been kicked to the curb could serve as support for the notion that a man will tolerate the flagrant class and relationship disloyalty of a woman so long as she’s hot enough. That kind of theory cannot be allowed to gain validity.

    Gordon’s actual prior conduct didn’t reap an appropriate reward, whereas Dreher was merely theorizing.

    Like


  136. “Further unlike a cheating man, a cheating woman is very likely herself to decide to end the marriage, even if her lover won’t marry her. The very things that make some women less interested in casual sex with not emotional involvement in it, or feel cheapened and conflicted if they slut around anyway, makes most (not all) women tend to form strong emotional bonds with a new and exciting lover. Those also automatically lessen or break the romantic rather than friendship or partnership feels and urges she had for her husband. They may and probably have dulled over time anyway as a different agape bond has grown, but after a love affair, she will then typically back project that they’d gone far more than they really had before, but not after her affair began.

    @doug1 —

    Precisely.

    Female adultery is a much, much bigger threat to the marriage.

    Women tend to bond one-at-a-time. Sure, there are some sluts out there who are not like that, but they are outnumbered by the one-at-a-time types. And when they have an emotionally and sexually exciting new lover, they tend to bond with him sexually and emotionally, and relegate the husband to “he feels like a brother to me” type of status.

    A recent confirmation of this was the Tsing Loh article in The Atlantic. She explicitly said she could not replace the romantic memories of her affair partner with her husband. The classic case of what happens when wives have affairs. The affairs wreck the marriage most of the time because the wife leaves her husband emotionally as a part of the affair.

    Male affairs tend to be about supplemental sex and intimacy. Men tend, if they can get away with it, towards polygamy. But they have no intention of leaving their wives and children for their mistresses. Female affairs tend to be “replacements” — that is, the paramour is not a supplement to the relationship with the husband, but a replacement for the emotional and sexual relationship with the husband that the wife no longer wants, or that she would at least prefer to have with the paramour. Once the affair gets in full swing, the wife’s main romantic, emotional, and sexual longings are for her paramour, and she begins to be very irritable about her husband, especially if he is asking for intimacy (which many women in these circumstances will describe as feeling like a violation — precisely because they see their husband as a sexual and emotional outsider by that point compared to their lover).

    For endless generations we have known as a species the huge risks posed by female infidelity — and this is why we suppressed it to such a huge degree. We deregulated it to our tremendous folly. And people like Dreher merely enable the further destruction of families — and the terrible toll that takes on men and children — by tolerating this behavior in women.

    Like


  137. novaseeker–

    Dreher is out to lunch. His wife may be a Christian, but she’s also a woman. If an affair happens, Roissy’s perspective on it is much more accurate than Dreher’s — believe me.

    Yeah. Specifically relevant to your point is this from Roissy, which is congruent with what I said in my long comment on Dreher:

    By the way, don’t think for a minute your marriage will ever be the same after your wife is caught cheating. Unless you have the fortitude and willpower to dump your bad beta habits for a good alpha attitude adjustment, your wife, no matter how penitent, will never tingle in her gina for you ever again. And lest you nurse ignorance about this, a gina tingle is the only moral code that women subscribe to. So really, if you want to enjoy the pleasure of a loving, sexually avaialable wife into your dotage, you have only two options when confronted with infidelity: Leave her, or learn Game.

    A lot of this is simply wired into women as compared to men, as I explained in detail. Some of it though is the degree to which feminism influenced women (American women who aren’t deeply religious and even some of them) tend to get a free pass especially in their own minds if they have an affair.

    The cultural zeitgeist holds that men always want to cheat, they’re men and dogs after all, so if they do they’re simply weakly, disloyally and wrongfully giving in to an impulse they should control, and if some men didn’t, there would be no stable marriages. Note how this feminist influenced American media backstory on male infidelity cuts men no slack whatsoever in having greater urges to cheat or at least greater in more circumstances, or in it meaning vastly less to them when they do. None whatsoever. It would be considering women “lesser than” and “unequal” to take male cheating less seriously, and has been an absolute anathema to any vaguley feminist or proto feminist American women for more than 100 years, at least.

    This same cultural zeitgeist holds that when women want to cheat, it’s obviously entirely the man’s fault. Or damn close to entirely. Even a number of the more influential the commenters on this blog, notably the in other respects estimable Dave from Hawaii and many others, tend to more or less have this view. I.e. if the woman wants to cheat, ok, yeah maybe she should ideally control herself, but really it must mean that something’s rotten in the state of Denmark/the marriage, it’s hubbies fault, it’s dead, she “can’t or shouldn’t stop growing”, she must “come to grips with her feelings” and so on.

    In other words, this feminist world view places a woman’s emotional/sexual urges of the moment as the compass moral lodestone by which she not only might, but morally should guide her own actions. In sharp contrast to her husband, who should never follow his base sexual urges, the dog, but fight successfully always to remain faithful, including often in thought as well as deed. By this unbelievably male disadvantaging feminist worldview.

    Like


  138. on June 30, 2009 at 8:18 pm Epoxytocin No. 87

    the fact that she hadn’t been kicked to the curb could serve as support for the notion that a man will tolerate the flagrant class and relationship disloyalty of a woman so long as she’s hot enough. That kind of theory cannot be allowed to gain validity.

    You mean to say, “That kind of theory, despite its validity, cannot become widely known.”

    Or, in 2009, “That kind of theory, despite its validity and universal familiarity, cannot continue to be propagated by the actions of rich dipshits.”

    Seriously, does anyone care what this guy thinks?

    Feminist memes are like clouds, dude. All you need is a single grain of pollution in the atmosphere, and soon enough you’ve got some shit that can cause serious destruction.

    Like


  139. “Even if I forgave him and tried to make it work, it wouldn’t be the same. The trust would be gone, everything would be gone. It’s just going to be a miserable marriage, and he’s probably going to cheat again. Once a cheater, always a cheater.”

    @Mandy! —

    Pretty much the case. For men who cheat, the main issue is how to rebuild trust, and it’s a huge betrayal, so it’s certainly hard. For women who cheat, usually the women do not want to work on the marriage, because they no longer want their husbands — that’s even harder to overcome, I think.

    Both male and female infidelity are morally equivalent in terms of being terrible betrayals. But the practicalities of each are different. If trust can be rebuilt, male adultery can be gotten past with a lot of work — because normally the guy is remorseful, and wants to work on the marriage because he loves his wife. When women cheat they typically are not remorseful, are not interested in working on the marriage, and therefore it’s very hard to move forward.

    I’m not making this up. My own marriage counselor told me this during my own divorce in light of my ex’s infidelity.

    Like


  140. “This same cultural zeitgeist holds that when women want to cheat, it’s obviously entirely the man’s fault. Or damn close to entirely”

    @doug1 —

    Indeed.

    Women seem to universally (1) blame their husbands for their own cheating and (2) feel no remorse for their cheating because of (1). They also generally are uninterested in working on the marriage, like Tsing Loh. And society supports them in this, due to chivalry — the idea that women always must be supported, and if women ever do anything wrong, there must be a man lurking around somewhere who “made her do it”.

    Like


  141. #3: Clear loser but he’s just flapping his gums and speculating what he’d do IF…

    #2: Lady who? nothing special here, her story is old and tired and not uncommon. Her only distinction is she proudly parades the sordid details of her sad life on the internet, in which her beta is just a minor detail.

    #1: The winner, by a huge margin. WTF. This guy has options and yet to have your face rubbed in a coke whoring, bad boy fling… and then say “its okay honey, I forgive you” ouch.

    Like


  142. on June 30, 2009 at 8:31 pm Cliff Arroyo

    Given that I’d actually read what Ron “Crunchy” Dreher has written before (he’s hilarious at times if you’re in the right mood) I’ll just throw this out there:

    I wonder if he’s found out his wife has already cheated and this is his passive-agressive way of shaming her while appearing to take (his horribly stunted version of) the moral highground.

    Given his general lack of interest in other people (and stupefying lack of understanding their motives or goals in life) I can’t imagine him writing about his wife cheating if she hasn’t actually done so…

    Like


  143. Good points Doug.

    That’s why I voted for Dreher. The Aussie Billionaire DID kick the girl to the curb. He’s got another GF. He never showed up to “support her” and his ex’s father berated him for that.

    Guy did not want to court press abuse (press is feminized to the max) but clearly kicked her to the curb.

    Agreed also on the cutting slack and excuse making for female infidelity. Women too face choices: hot sex or keep their marriage. If they want the hot sex, they ought to admit their own failure to control their lust and wreck their marriage. Loh wanted the hot sex and thus wrecked her marriage.

    For cheating wives, there is no other solution than replacement. There just isn’t. With the correlated that men won’t invest anything beyond court-ordered mins in kids. This is just reality. You cannot compel love.

    Like


  144. Candidate #1. Hands down.

    Why? Because he’s rich, and is dating a crazy, drug-addicted, slut. Sure, she’s incredibly attractive. But her attractiveness isn’t improving his status. In fact, she’s making him look worse;

    And here she is in Todays newspaper – in a passionate embrace with a dwarf / guy with no legs who is also a “nightclub promoter / underworld figure” – honestly you couldn’t make this stuff up

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25716726-5001021,00.html

    Like


  145. Dreher’s wife may have cheated. Good call Cliff. That was my thought also. I mean, why write something like that? Most women in marriages will cheat at the drop of a hat, since there is no penalty for it and they fall out of love with their ordinary husbands rapidly after the wedding.

    I’m nothing special. At all. I’VE had married women come on to me. It was never about me. Just about them not wanting their hubbies. I don’t do married women. Sigh. There was a time when that was ALL I got, in terms of female interest.

    Like


  146. Good points Doug.

    That’s why I voted for Dreher. The Aussie Billionaire DID kick the girl to the curb.

    she still works on his network – an alpha would have publicly fired her.

    Like


  147. […] the rest of this great post here Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]

    Like


  148. on June 30, 2009 at 8:43 pm Lawyer from Hell

    Thursday:

    “BTW Mrs. Dreher is quite cute in a nerd girl kind of way. By all indications, she would also seem to be extremely unlikely to cheat . . .”

    Bwahahahahahahahaha.

    This was a joke, right?

    Anybody can cheat. ANYONE.

    With a 70% cheating rate, the odds are better that someone will, than won’t.

    Like


  149. Mandy–

    This is what confuses me, but most of my friends claim to hate divorce more than adultery. In my opinion, I couldn’t stay with someone that committed adultery. Even if I forgave him and tried to make it work, it wouldn’t be the same. The trust would be gone, everything would be gone. It’s just going to be a miserable marriage, and he’s probably going to cheat again. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

    Mandy, I like you, but you’re a fool in this.

    There is far, far, far more reason for a man to feel this way about his wife ever cheating, than a woman. I’ve explained some of why above. Please, challenge me on those things, if you’d like.

    Ok, you might say, even if I agreed with you that a man might have more reason to think it must be curtains for the relationship if his wife or live together LTR cheats on him, there is still plenty of reason for a wife too feel that way too. And I do.

    You shouldn’t. You’re simply wrong and propaganized to think that a man who’s said he loves you, and shown you he does, and married you, and stood by you through troubles, having sex with another woman, means he doesn’t love you any longer, or much less. Doesn’t mean that at all with men, or with a great many men, especially the more alpha kinds of man. They just want polygamy, or some diversity in their rutting. In fact you know what men instinctively want when they’ve just had a business or professional triumph, that yes does send testosterone coursing through their veins? They want a hot young strange bitch. A whore or slut, or party girl. It’s a universal male fantasy and sometimes reality, for virtually all high achievers who have some sex drive.

    You’d be making a big life satisfaction mistake to throw out an alpha for sex only or almost only if we’re gonna be really honest here, daliance or two.

    What you should care about is being made second rate in love regard. And be vigilant and insistent and divorce threatening abut that.

    Now what I really believe in is some degree of rules based partner veto rights open. Open on the female side too you’ll ask, like any feminist deeply influenced American chick? Well yes BUT. The dangers there are vastly greater. For either sex it’s supposed to be just, or almost just, sexual diversity. The trouble is, often women don’t really want that. What they really want is much better sex or worse, much better sex with much stronger emotional attachment than they currently feel with their husband, or nothing. Maybe it only works with former sluts, or could have been single sluts but for some reason weren’t?

    That by the way ISN’T what sina qua non for male desire for other sex. Just other is great for men after awhile, even if the woman isn’t way hotter or better in bed. Ask prostitutes. Look at many prostitutes compared to many wives. Sure way hotter looking or better in bed sex too is real nice, but if cut off if that got out of hand, the whole purpose of some degree of openness in a long standing relationship wouldn’t disappear for a high sex drive man. It would for most women. Feminism systematically refuses to take account of these differences.

    Not at the beginning. If it must be at the beginning, it’s a pretty tepid low intensity beginning which you should reject. Men too, when they’re first really in love, I’m talking alphas here too, just want their love girl.

    Like


  150. @nova,

    But the practicalities of each are different. If trust can be rebuilt, male adultery can be gotten past with a lot of work — because normally the guy is remorseful, and wants to work on the marriage because he loves his wife.

    nova, what exactly is this: work? What exactly does a husband do to regain trust? What would Mark Sanford exactly do ? I’m speculating that you have no personal experience here, but if you have, I’d be interested.

    Like


  151. on June 30, 2009 at 8:50 pm Cannon's Canon

    “she still works on his network – an alpha would have publicly fired her.”

    debatable. why celebrate an escaped future alimony with a wrongful termination lawsuit?

    that article with the dwarf-hug claims the billionaire has cut off contact with his whore fiance since the “bikie” incident AND kicked her out of the apartment they shared for two years. sounds like alpha mastery to me.

    i think he should be disqualified in lieu of this new evidence.

    Like


  152. @doug,
    I’ll challenge you on this. Mandy is young, and her instincts are solid. If a young wife is cheated on, she best divorce and move on. She’s got a stinker low-life high-risk cheater for a spouse.
    Very different for a more mature marriage. An older wife will have experienced decades of experience with the man, and see it as a failure against a backdrop of thousands of behaviors that, on balance, redeem him.

    Like


  153. on June 30, 2009 at 8:54 pm Lawyer from Hell

    The Ugly Truth

    “For your information, the billionaire dumped the cheating GF. Probably not long after the biker incident, although he did not make it public. So I don’t see strong evidence for betadom there.”

    My favorite part of that article is the click that led to the girl’s dad berating the billionaire for not sticking with her and protecting her.

    Like


  154. “nova, what exactly is this: work? What exactly does a husband do to regain trust? What would Mark Sanford exactly do ? I’m speculating that you have no personal experience here, but if you have, I’d be interested.”

    @anony —

    I do have personal experience with female infidelity, not male infidelity.

    I think a man or a woman has to do the same things to regain trust. First, break off the affair. Second, express genuine remorse. Third, express a sincere interest to work on rebuilding trust and intimacy. Fourth, accept accountability, give your spouse space to decide what to do. Fifth, if they are willing to work on the marriage, you need to do things to make yourself accountable. Cut down on absences. Spend more time with your spouse. Open the kimono so that there are no secrets and no opportunities for secrets. Be patient with your spouse’s lack of trust, and hesitancy. And so on.

    I experienced this alright, anony, but from the other perspective.

    Like


  155. Weak lineup this month.

    Dreher is the champ this month. Almost made be gag.

    O’Lady’s chef might be a beta, but he sounds like a good man in his way. He may be trying to serve as a role model for her son. He may see O’Lady and her son as part of an extended family. Maybe O’Lady’s house is a total mess, and he feels badly the boy has to live in such conditions. But, showing kindness to someone you loved in the past just isn’t a crime in my book. Who says she dumped him? Maybe he tired of her (in and out of bed), but still is attached to her and her son emotionally, on a higher plane than sex. After all, the human condition allows for more emotions than lust and hate. Life is much too short for hate.

    About who dumped whom. A wise Frenchman said, back in the 18th century, “Any fool can start an affair. It takes great skill to end one.”

    The billionaire? Beta? No. Sluting around with a beautiful babe? WTF? Now, if he married her, that would be beta. The chances that he doesn’t have other women would be small.

    So, we know too little about the other two candidates. Dreher, based on his own words, is the clear winner.

    Like


  156. on June 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm Lawyer from Hell

    For those of you that think #3 isn’t the biggest beta and isn’t asking to be cheated on, I have a little tale to tell.

    The artist William Morris back in the 1800’s painted his wife as Guinevere and he wrote long articles in Defense of Guinevere and her adultry. Perfect Beta words and Dreher echos them.

    Well, Morris got exactly what he advocated for: His wife had an affair with his best friend.

    Like


  157. on June 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””””””””’novaseeker
    “nova, what exactly is this: work? What exactly does a husband do to regain trust? What would Mark Sanford exactly do ? I’m speculating that you have no personal experience here, but if you have, I’d be interested.”

    @anony –

    I do have personal experience with female infidelity, not male infidelity.

    I think a man or a woman has to do the same things to regain trust. First, break off the affair. Second, express genuine remorse. Third, express a sincere interest to work on rebuilding trust and intimacy. Fourth, accept accountability, give your spouse space to decide what to do. Fifth, if they are willing to work on the marriage, you need to do things to make yourself accountable. Cut down on absences. Spend more time with your spouse. Open the kimono so that there are no secrets and no opportunities for secrets. Be patient with your spouse’s lack of trust, and hesitancy. And so on.

    I experienced this alright, anony, but from the other perspective.
    ””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Nova when a guy cheats it is not the same if he chose the woman for lifetime to being with. He knows her looks are gonna go eventually shit like that. None of that shit you just wrote applies. Hesitency patience bla bla that is all woman psychology crap.

    Like


  158. About what to do with an unfaithful wife? Just dump her. You will never trust her again, and never love her again. The joy in your relationship is just gone. Don’t 2nd guess it. No 2nd chances.

    If there are kids involved, too damn bad. You have a life, too.

    Learn from your mistakes.

    Now, if all the above were true before the infidelity (no trust, love, or joy in the relationship), then the infidelity is no big deal. But, why stay married?

    Like


  159. “Nova when a guy cheats it is not the same if he chose the woman for lifetime to being with. He knows her looks are gonna go eventually shit like that. None of that shit you just wrote applies. Hesitency patience bla bla that is all woman psychology crap.”

    @Gunny —

    And so, being woman psychology crap, would have no bearing on how to re-establish trust with a woman?

    Like


  160. @guns,
    Please explain:

    Nova when a guy cheats it is not the same if he chose the woman for lifetime to being with. He knows her looks are gonna go eventually shit like that. None of that shit you just wrote applies. Hesitency patience bla bla that is all woman psychology crap.

    Like


  161. on June 30, 2009 at 9:12 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””””””””””novaseeker
    “Nova when a guy cheats it is not the same if he chose the woman for lifetime to being with. He knows her looks are gonna go eventually shit like that. None of that shit you just wrote applies. Hesitency patience bla bla that is all woman psychology crap.”

    @Gunny –

    And so, being woman psychology crap, would have no bearing on how to re-establish trust with a woman?”””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Because hopefully the guy grabbed balls and told her beforehand that he was gonna fuck another chick. Has no impact on trust in the relationship.

    Like


  162. Max A

    she still works on his network – an alpha would have publicly fired her.

    He’d have faced and lost or settled a lawsuit in the millions under a particular male oppressive bit of feminist legislation, passed around the Anglosphere in immitation of American feminist example, that you may have heard of:

    Sexual “harassment” law.

    Doesn’t that just stick in our caws in a situation like this?

    Hell, in the vast majority of applications of that legal principal, gift to the Anglosphere from we Americans?

    Like


  163. Doug’s wrong and Mandy’s right.

    Of course men have a stronger natural inclination to cheat. But for all the mumbo-jumbo y’all spout about what women want, you all conveniently forget women’s powerful drive to feel precious and valued. This has a very strong basis in evolution, because women need someone to provide for them and their child, and need strong pair bonding. And as for the “fuck the dominant alpha and get the sucker beta to raise the kid strategy,” it turns out that women aren’t in super strong agreement as to what alpha is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1196173/Men-agree-whats-hot-girls-not.html

    Quality women are defined by their preference for being highly valued over finding “alpha sperm.” That’s why quality women choose men who make quality mates in every way. Quality women inherently appreciate being valued, and will choose a quality male who values them over a more dominant PUA “wanna-be alpha” who doesn’t. In fact, being treated as precious is exactly what makes a quality woman’s giney most tingly.

    So cheating on a quality woman denies her the most important thing to her, to feel precious and special. That violates the entire foundation of the relationship. Consequently, quality women will naturally kick a cheater to the curb, just as quality men should.

    Like


  164. Okay, reports are in that the Billionaire eventually, quietly dumped the coke whore — still beta for missing the opportunity for a public shaming.

    Unconfirmed reports are coming in that Dreher’s wife already cheated on him and the article is merely a beta passive-aggressive attempt to get back at her. If confirmed I’d like to change my vote to Dreher.

    If Mrs Dreher’s rumored adultery remains uncomfirmed then I object to the weak lineup this month and resubmit my nominee for beta of the month; Larry David on Conan whining about his harpy wife that divorced him but then made an outrageous comment on orgasms at 6min mark.

    Like


  165. “Because hopefully the guy grabbed balls and told her beforehand that he was gonna fuck another chick. Has no impact on trust in the relationship.”

    Okay. Doubt that works in most relationships, but if it is a sufficiently dominant relationship and is disclosed in advance like that I can imagine it working. I think her question was about the more typical situation where the guy doesn’t tell her in advance, and so there is a trust issue.

    Like


  166. Keith, you’re so full of shit it’s not even funny! Precious? Special? Get the fuck out of here you omega douche!

    Like


  167. @Tupac – “Hey Keith, what do you think about those betas who prefer to marry androgynous she-males with masculine digit ratios because they can’t handle the vagaries of feminine emotion?”

    When I meet one I’ll let you know.

    Like


  168. Opps, embedded link does not work, try this.

    Conan Link

    Like


  169. anony —

    @doug, I’ll challenge you on this. Mandy is young, and her instincts are solid. If a young wife is cheated on, she best divorce and move on. She’s got a stinker low-life high-risk cheater for a spouse.
    Very different for a more mature marriage. An older wife will have experienced decades of experience with the man, and see it as a failure against a backdrop of thousands of behaviors that, on balance, redeem him.

    When I read the first phrases of this from YOU, I was girding my loins to do battle with you, along the lines of dismissal of feminist dogma …., esp since i jsut read a bit, had some other communication come in and went away, before returning.

    Then I read what you had to say, and well, yeah.

    I agree.

    I even said so, really. Cheating early on in a relationship that’s meant to be about true and deep emotional love, the one, the marriage, is bad news. A young wife facing that esp. without kids should definitely cut her losses.

    I also said I really don’t like full up cheating period, but think that American women do need to start to relax about some tacit understanding within limits and with veto rights. This might be more or less explicit. But if it’s true left field, cheating, not good at all for trust.

    As well, some or many kinds of male extramarital even in a 10 or 15 or 20 yo marriage are not good and can become or are unacceptable. It’s not to be abused. A wife who allows a little is to be deeply cherished, and not embarrassed with friends, but respected and followed when she says “NO. No more with her. This is feeling bad for good reasons now. No more period for now. We need us and only us again.”

    Like


  170. @anony, Doug1:

    “I’ll challenge you on this. Mandy is young, and her instincts are solid. If a young wife is cheated on, she best divorce and move on. She’s got a stinker low-life high-risk cheater for a spouse.”

    Quote for truth.

    I had a friend who went through hell for two years. She married a relatively rich, outgoing, good looking guy. You could describe him as alpha. She heard from people that he was cheating, going on dates with other women, sleeping with other women, but she ignored them. She loved him. He loved her. Well, one day, she pulled out the digicam after he came back from a trip, and found pictures of a naked woman. I agree with Doug1 on men desiring “other” sex, because according to her, the woman was a “fat fug.” That was pretty much the last straw for her, and she filed for a divorce. She didn’t want his money, his house, anything, she just wanted out. He knew this and refused to sign the papers, and I watched her waste away for a year. She went from weighing 115 pounds to weighing 89. He finally realized she wasn’t messing with him, and let her have the divorce.

    Did he love her? Maybe, in his own effed up way. But he wasn’t worth it.

    And Doug1, I know that, deep down inside, you are right. But I’m speaking from my own emotions, and I’ll never be able to look at him the same if I found out he did that.

    Although, I’ve seen all sorts of weird relationships, and I know one girl who did forgive her boyfriend for cheating, and was quite happy afterwards. Then again, he let her fool around with other girls (she wasn’t allowed to fool around with other guys, though).

    “Very different for a more mature marriage. An older wife will have experienced decades of experience with the man, and see it as a failure against a backdrop of thousands of behaviors that, on balance, redeem him.”

    Or she could just stick with him for fear of ending up alone.
    I know an older woman that knows her husband has affairs, but will not divorce him, because she’s “the first one” or something like that.

    Like


  171. @Keith,

    Quality women are defined by their preference for being highly valued over finding “alpha sperm.” That’s why quality women choose men who make quality mates in every way. Quality women inherently appreciate being valued, and will choose a quality male who values them over a more dominant PUA “wanna-be alpha” who doesn’t. In fact, being treated as precious is exactly what makes a quality woman’s giney most tingly.

    So cheating on a quality woman denies her the most important thing to her, to feel precious and special. That violates the entire foundation of the relationship. Consequently, quality women will naturally kick a cheater to the curb, just as quality men should.

    That was refreshingly true. The “special snowflake” theory is at odds with the “hypergamy” indoctrination at this site. I’ve tried to include the “special snowflake” talk in the past, but it gets chewed by the wolf pack here. The most critical drive in a young woman is to find a man who values her as a special snowflake; she’ll know she has a keeper. A young woman’s hypergamy tendencies are pathologic and will fail her children.

    Like


  172. @Firepower:

    You’re like that cat in my neighborhood everyone feeds in hopes of winning its affections

    but it just bites their feet instead and runs away.

    Like


  173. on June 30, 2009 at 9:37 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””””””’novaseeker
    “Because hopefully the guy grabbed balls and told her beforehand that he was gonna fuck another chick. Has no impact on trust in the relationship.”

    Okay. Doubt that works in most relationships, but if it is a sufficiently dominant relationship and is disclosed in advance like that I can imagine it working. I think her question was about the more typical situation where the guy doesn’t tell her in advance, and so there is a trust issue.”””””””””””””””””””””””

    Womans “”””careers””””’ do it to them all the time and woman still love that career even maybe the ””quality”’ ones.

    Like


  174. “The most critical drive in a young woman is to find a man who values her as a special snowflake; she’ll know she has a keeper. A young woman’s hypergamy tendencies are pathologic and will fail her children.”

    @anony —

    But how do we know which tendency is more strong? That is a big issue, isn’t it? I suspect you have a different perspective from many here on what is, in fact, the stronger drive.

    Like


  175. @mandy,

    Or she could just stick with him for fear of ending up alone.

    possibly true, but she may also be thinking:
    -screw loose?
    -what’s wrong with you?
    -what are you so desperate for?

    against the backdrop of many years together , she may know him better than he can understand himself.

    Like


  176. on June 30, 2009 at 9:44 pm Gunslingergregi

    Life endlessly ironic

    Best way to deal with feminists compare their carreer to their man.

    Guy is always suppose to come in second place to a job.

    Shit is a joke.

    Like


  177. Mandy! XD

    @Firepower:

    You’re like that cat in my neighborhood everyone feeds in hopes of winning its affections

    but it just bites their feet instead and runs away.

    you’ve described me fairly accurately

    so

    i may let you pet me

    Like


  178. on June 30, 2009 at 9:45 pm Gunslingergregi

    Oh yea then kids it is

    1st ‘carreer

    2nd kids

    3rd is the guy doing 50 percent of work around house

    Somewhere along line the husband.

    Like


  179. on June 30, 2009 at 9:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    Guys need to fucking change the frame and expect more out of woman and life.

    Like


  180. on June 30, 2009 at 9:46 pm Tupac Chopra

    I agree with Doug1 on men desiring “other” sex, because according to her, the woman was a “fat fug.”

    I think it’s quite possible that when the Other Woman is a “fat fug”, or at least fatter and fugger than the wife, it’s because the wife was a frigid ice queen.

    See: Hugh Grant/Elizabeth Hurley

    Y’all just KNOW that when Hugh banged that black whore, it wasn’t because his wife wasn’t pretty enough.

    Like


  181. @nova,

    healthy young woman bound to flourish in marriage: special snowflake trumps hypergamy

    damaged young woman bound for divorce: hypergamy trumps special snowflake

    Like


  182. @anony:

    “possibly true, but she may also be thinking:
    -screw loose?
    -what’s wrong with you?
    -what are you so desperate for?

    against the backdrop of many years together , she may know him better than he can understand himself.”

    That makes sense.

    She might also be thinking that it might be her fault or something.

    And people who have been married for a long time can usually finish each other’s sentences, or make vague allusions to thinks no one else would understand and understand it. (“Remember when..” “Oh yeah, that was funny!”) So at that point, you can assume that she’s wired into his brain.

    Like


  183. on June 30, 2009 at 9:51 pm Tupac Chopra

    annoy:

    That was refreshingly true. The “special snowflake” theory is at odds with the “hypergamy” indoctrination at this site. I’ve tried to include the “special snowflake” talk in the past, but it gets chewed by the wolf pack here.

    That’s because Special Snowflake theory only holds water in the initial stages of courtship.

    After a commitment has been extracted from the man, her opinion of him drops precipitously.

    Hypergamy then takes over.

    There’s a lot of talk in The Community about the various things that cause one to lose Alpha Points. This or that, here and there.

    But what few realize is that often — not entirely or even necessarily — but often enough that it merits consideration, is that the mere act of a man granting exclusivity to a woman lowers his value in her eyes.

    In the intial stages, this drop may be imperceptible, swamped by the many other feel-good emotions swirling around, but it exists nonetheless.

    Like


  184. @Tupac:

    “I think it’s quite possible that when the Other Woman is a “fat fug”, or at least fatter and fugger than the wife, it’s because the wife was a frigid ice queen.”

    Well, I don’t know, but I think it was just because he was young. He wanted to secure her, a pretty wife, to have someone to come home to, but at the same time, he wanted to paint the town red and run around and sleep with lots of other women.

    “See: Hugh Grant/Elizabeth Hurley

    Y’all just KNOW that when Hugh banged that black whore, it wasn’t because his wife wasn’t pretty enough.”

    Liz Hurley is so insanely gorgeous.
    But yeah, I see what you’re saying.

    Like


  185. @Tupac:

    “But what few realize is that often — not entirely or even necessarily — but often enough that it merits consideration, is that the mere act of a man granting exclusivity to a woman lowers his value in her eyes.”

    I was like this for a short while (doesn’t mean I valued hypergamy). I’d like someone, then dislike them after they returned the interest.

    This continued until I got made fun of by my friends. It opened my eyes to how stupid I was being.

    Like


  186. Mandy! XD

    And people who have been married for a long time can usually finish each other’s sentences, or make vague allusions to thinks no one else would understand and understand it. (”Remember when..” “Oh yeah, that was funny!”) So at that point, you can assume that she’s wired into his brain.

    what the hell are you rambling about lol this is like Ritalin Rap

    Like


  187. Lawyer from Hell–

    The artist William Morris back in the 1800’s painted his wife as Guinevere and he wrote long articles in Defense of Guinevere and her adultry. Perfect Beta words and Dreher echos them.

    Well, Morris got exactly what he advocated for: His wife had an affair with his best friend.

    Great annecdote.

    Thanks. It’s been added to my inventory.

    Like


  188. @tupac ,
    what you stated may be true, but it does not degate the strong instinct for a woman to find a man who demonstrates that he sees her as a special snowflake. Both may be at play.

    A woman , that you described above, agreeing to husband’s infidelity, is damaged and wreckless for her children. A normal healthy woman bonds to a man who will be there for her kids for the long haul.

    Like


  189. Mandy = Predator posing as a house pet.

    You heard it here first.

    Like


  190. @collegeboy:

    You always assume the worst of me.

    @Firepower:

    “what the hell are you rambling about lol this is like Ritalin Rap”
    All the better for you to understand it.

    anony said:
    “A normal healthy woman bonds to a man who will be there for her kids for the long haul.”
    This makes sense.

    I think, maybe, when the couple is young and there are no children, a woman may want her man to be a desirable man, as shown by their ability to attract women (maybe not necessarily cheat), but out of all those women, she wants to be number one.
    Once children come into play, he needs to be there.

    Like


  191. @Tupac

    First you start out really absolutist:

    “That’s because Special Snowflake theory only holds water in the initial stages of courtship.
    After a commitment has been extracted from the man, her opinion of him drops precipitously.
    Hypergamy then takes over.”

    Then you tone it down a lot:

    “But what few realize is that often — not entirely or even necessarily — but often enough that it merits consideration, is that the mere act of a man granting exclusivity to a woman lowers his value in her eyes.”

    I agree more with your second tone, that there is some “de-alpha” effect and it varies from situation to situation, rather than your first tone, which implies a large and universal “de-alpha” effect.

    And there’s a natural effect where men devalue a woman over time because she isn’t new to them.

    So a lot of time people meet, they have these initial “special snowflake” effects, and they have a relationship, and then these other effects take over, and the relationship ends. It’s called “serial mongamy.”

    And then, at some point, for a whole bunch of reasons, the special snowflake effects are stronger and last longer, the “alpha loss” effects are smaller, and people have a longer-term relationship.

    So men rack up some partners from serial monogamy, women rack up some partners from serial mongamy, and then at some point men and women marry.

    Is this universal? No.

    But on this board, there seems to be some special emphasis on this one particular model that’s highly incomplete and misses a lot about how things actually work.

    I suspect that’s because this blog is centered around the casual dating game, which conforms much more strongly to the model where these hypergamous effects are strong and overwhelming.

    Finally, the casual dating scene is much bigger when women outnumber men. Roissy’s world isn’t brought about by female choice, but by the opposite: less female choice. When women have fewer choices and men have more choices, women can’t count on men to regard them as precious, and hypergamy becomes much stronger.

    It turns out PUA “alphas” are inferior goods.

    Like


  192. on June 30, 2009 at 10:12 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””””””””anony
    @tupac ,
    what you stated may be true, but it does not degate the strong instinct for a woman to find a man who demonstrates that he sees her as a special snowflake. Both may be at play.

    A woman , that you described above, agreeing to husband’s infidelity, is damaged and wreckless for her children. A normal healthy woman bonds to a man who will be there for her kids for the long haul.”””””””””””””””””””’

    Fucking other woman has no need to have any impact on the long haul. Yea normal healthy woman divorce guys who don’t fuck other woman and treat them like a special snowflake and require nothing of them but they they have a vag and that is all. This is the only problem with your argument.

    Like


  193. on June 30, 2009 at 10:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    Actually having more than one wife would have a good impact on the children because now you can have a child care that is in the family instead of a stranger raising the kids. While couple of the wives can have ”career”

    Like


  194. on June 30, 2009 at 10:18 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea keith 75 percent divorce or some shit yea really the fault of the pua alpha smart revalation you have come to.

    Like


  195. @Gunslingergregi:

    Sounds weird, but that could work if the wives get along.

    Unless you have catfight fantasies.

    Like


  196. on June 30, 2009 at 10:19 pm Tupac Chopra

    annoy:

    what you stated may be true, but it does not degate the strong instinct for a woman to find a man who demonstrates that he sees her as a special snowflake. Both may be at play.

    This what I alluded to in a previous thread when I said it is best for a man to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    A successful seducer is always communicating on multiple levels at once. He speaks to her forebrain to assuage any fears she may have about not being the special snowflake.

    This is why a lot of guys who “over-alpha” tend to blow it.

    You have to be, or at the very least, *appear* somewhat attainable and invested.

    But under no circumstances should the man ever lose sight of the fact that he is dealing with a hypergamous creature.

    This is where “speaking to her mind while gripping her pussy” comes into play.

    Or as I like say:

    “Speak beta, but carry a big stick.”

    Or dick, as the case may be.

    Like


  197. on June 30, 2009 at 10:23 pm Tupac Chopra

    Gunny:

    Yea keith 75 percent divorce or some shit yea really the fault of the pua alpha smart revalation you have come to.

    Yep.

    70% female-initiated divorces.

    Like


  198. on June 30, 2009 at 10:25 pm Hollywood Hotsauce

    I had a Day2 on tuesday this is how it went. I’m hoping to get some feedback from the REAL players on here and not the KJs.

    Went out Monday night and number closed a Cameron Diaz looking Norwegian girl, it was a two set so I Day2ed them to go watch Transformers. I’ve read theory about how movie dates are terrible but having first-hand experience is definitely a lot more “illuminating”. During the set I pumped attraction but didn’t do Kino or sexualise so I already had ground to make up. Called her up and met in central London. Go there we had to pay £13.50 ($20) to get in. In my local area cinema you pay £5.50 at most and I could see the girls were visibly pissed about it been that expensive. She was with her friend so I couldn’t really do much or say much. By the time we got in to watch the film it was already five minutes in. Only spoke to her once in the whole 2 hours plus we were in there and she didn’t make an effort to make conversation with me either. We got out of the cinema after the film ended and instead of leading I kept asking them what they wanted to do. Basically if I came up with something decent they probably would have followed but I didn’t so they went home. My girl bringing her friend along meant that now I’m further behind now because I didn’t to say or do much with her at all. I’m thinking of texting her and saying something along the lines of “Hey the other night was cool but next time I want to go out with you alone because I think you’re a nice girl but I haven’t really gotten a chance to know you yet”, basically I want to try and get her out alone and if she doesn’t bite then I’m cutting her off. She’s travelling again on Friday so I have to make it quick. My natural friend goes on movie dates all the time and still gets laid so I thought why can’t I make it work, at least now I know why he gets laid and I don’t.

    Any general advice on how to avoid disasters like this in the future would be appreciated.

    Like


  199. on June 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm Tupac Chopra

    HH:

    Sounds like a total loss to me.

    Too many red-flags.

    Like


  200. Mandy! babblebitch XD

    @Firepower:

    “what the hell are you rambling about lol this is like Ritalin Rap”
    All the better for you to understand it.

    bravo. you take 134 paragraphs of chick poetry to say what all men know in one sentence:

    Liz Hurley didn’t suck cock, and Divine did.

    back on your crackpipe snookums

    Like


  201. You can’t make this shit up:


    My Mother Married Her Prison Pen Pal

    http://http://www.doublex.com/section/life/my-mother-married-her-prison-pen-pal

    > My mom told me later that corresponding with Joe seemed like a good mentorship opportunity—he was 17 years her junior, a young, amiable Navajo man with some “bad boy” hobbies (a biker! a tattoo artist! a pot head!) who’d gotten himself into a bit of trouble with the law.

    Like


  202. Keith
    I sense your good intentions but I wonder if you are not confusing the way you want women to be (quality, etc.) with the way they are on the ground?
    Women signal their ultimate, honest approval of a guy by spreading their labia for him. Everything else is noise. Do you disagree with this?
    If you do not disagree, then the question, “For what SORT of man do women spread their labia” becomes extremely relevant. Relevant to Game, for sure.
    Notice I did not say anything about marriage. Of course smart women want a long term, binding commitment from a dependable sort of guy. It is money in her bank. But what if you could measure pussy arousal just as easily as her eagerness to be supported?

    Like


  203. Without wanting to get dismissive of anyone or too pointed to begin with at least, the subject of male infidelity in long marriages or other LTR’s tends to unite beta males and most females (with some of the more alpha females often staying rather shut).

    A great many alpha or even near alpha males will understand what I’ve been saying.

    As well, there’s this phenomenon where with great regularity and predictability formerly higher betas become some kind of alpha after they’ve achieved professional or business success, later in life.

    To expect them to always both stay with and never stray from the degree of not so hotty (but possibly wonderful partner) wife, they were able to attract back in their higher beta working their way up days who is probably also about their age rather than being considerably younger given the American media’s feminist inspired teachings on that subject, is asking for the moon. It’s deeply male unnatural.

    It also seems nuts, and only explainable as a mass divorce phenomenon by an out of touch and out of control ideology (feminism), that most e.g. 40yo wives would divorce their loving husbands and father of their two children because he has a fling or two with late twenty something hotties. This wife should however be vigilant about that 29yo hottie’s efforts to steal him away for herself.

    Like


  204. “nally, the casual dating scene is much bigger when women outnumber men. Roissy’s world isn’t brought about by female choice, but by the opposite: less female choice. When women have fewer choices and men have more choices, women can’t count on men to regard them as precious, and hypergamy becomes much stronger.”

    @Keith —

    But don’t women outnumber men precisely because so many men self select out, thereby leaving the field for PUA/alphas? I mean, it’s not like non-Game young men have any real chance in that market.

    Like


  205. chuck

    it’s my understanding (I think it was agnostic who posted a very good piece over at gnxp a long time ago) that much of islam’s control of women stems from their relative polygamy in society. to protect their harem of women from the seduction of less socially dominant men, relatively strong men (in terms of harem number) have invoked the use of burkhas and strong laws against male/female interaction.

    The great majority of married Islamic women are actually in monogamous marriages. This is least true in a few African countries, or the Muslim parts of them (e.g. Nigeria; Senegal). It is true in the Arab Middle East, i.e. the archetypal and founding Muslim world, and most of the Muslim world.

    What it’s all about is cultural belief in patriarchy and that version of child rearing and so on. I have a lot of inside scoop on this. I’m emotionally involved with a Muslim girl right now (and emotional polygamy if you like, that yes is disclosed Mandy and anony and nova), and we talk about these things, between and among other things, many other things …

    Like


  206. on June 30, 2009 at 10:45 pm Tupac Chopra

    Still waiting on those pics, Doug…

    *tapping foot*

    Like


  207. on June 30, 2009 at 10:46 pm Gunslingergregi

    Hollywood 20 dollars for a movie ticket dang.

    I can get shit in the movies for 2 dollars per he he he

    You should of touched her in the movie theatre. Not sure about your touch game?

    Like


  208. on June 30, 2009 at 10:51 pm Tupac Chopra

    Gunny, he was pretty much dead in the water when she brought her friend along.

    That said, if he had played Aloof Game during the initial approach, and pitched the “date” as more of a platonic hang-out type deal, he could have sussed out the situation better without tipping his hand.

    But since he telegraphed interest to the target during the original two-set, he was then locked in to that frame.

    Like


  209. on June 30, 2009 at 10:55 pm Hollywood Hotsauce

    Tupac

    At the end they were still cool with me. We even talked about meeting up during the week again and they even brought that up. I think there’s still hop.

    Gunslinger

    My touch game is decent in attraction. when it comes to getting more intimate is where I have problems.

    Like


  210. Muslim Africa may be more polygamous than Muslim Saudi Arabia, but the women there are generally less socially confined than they are in Middle Eastern countries. I never saw a Muslim woman wearing a hijab or any other form of veil anywhere in Nigeria. That was in the late 1970s; things may have changed since then, with Muslim revivalism.

    But I shouldn’t generalize about “Africa” that way in any case: East African Muslims, in Somalia for example, clearly do expect women to wear some form of veil, and I think this has been true for a long time.

    Like


  211. @LR

    “It’s not weird, I keep in touch with all my exes and always have. ”

    Except for the father of your son I believe?

    Like


  212. chic noir talked with her mouth full:

    LR would break Roissy’s pelvis or put him in a body cast.

    while you’d just give him

    a hernia

    Like


  213. aoefe salts the wound:
    Except for the father of your son I believe?

    score!

    Like


  214. chuck:
    buchanan doesn’t hate jews, he’s merely stating that recent history seems to value the life of a Jew at ten times that of other people (6 million dead versus 60 million).

    i’m looking forward to hollywood underwriting a movie about the horrors of the kulak genocide.
    i’m not holding my breath.
    (whiskey, this comment was lovingly crafted with you in mind.)

    Like


  215. on June 30, 2009 at 11:10 pm Gunslingergregi

    Hollywood,

    Yea I worked on mine for years I was in 7th,8th grade at the time though. Got to work on that shit round out the repertoire.

    Like


  216. @Firepower:

    You’re just mad because I compared you to a cat.

    @doug1:

    “To expect them to always both stay with and never stray from the degree of not so hotty (but possibly wonderful partner) wife, they were able to attract back in their higher beta working their way up days who is probably also about their age rather than being considerably younger given the American media’s feminist inspired teachings on that subject, is asking for the moon. It’s deeply male unnatural.”

    There’s a saying in Spanish,”La novia del estudiante nunca llega a ser la esposa del profesionista.”

    It means,”The girlfriend of the student will never be the wife of the professional.”

    This is why I’m seriously considering shooting for older men.

    Like


  217. on June 30, 2009 at 11:12 pm Tupac Chopra

    (whiskey, this comment was lovingly crafted with you in mind.)

    Heh.

    I like Whiskey, but sometimes he seems like a jew-loving Mick.

    Like


  218. the friend wasn’t so bad – accepting the friend in the frame would signal confidence. it was having *no* idea what do to after the movie, except lamely waiting for them to decide he was boring and leave, which was fatal. i bet there are 50 cool things to do in central london. pick two or three, come up with a plan. a script. a theme which shows your value and plays to your strengths (art, knowledge, physical thrill-seeking, whatever). keep it funny and flirtatious, and given the presence of the gf, signal cool things to do on the next date and eject early (you have some other cool people to go meet). wait for her to text.

    Like


  219. on June 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm Hollywood Hotsauce

    Gunslinger

    7th and 8th grade? You definitely need an update for sure.

    Like


  220. 3 and I love Roissy’s summary except one thing…why the “no god” line? It isn’t needed for your arguement and you automatically alienate a subset. God has nothing to do with why 3 is a beta. If you write your book Roissy leave god (or his absence) out of it. It’s just as annoying to hear people whine on and on about their being no god as it is to hear them go on and on about god.

    Like


  221. aoefe

    @LR
    Except for the father of your son I believe?

    what directness. such poise. i’m wondering what you’d look like

    bent over
    in my shower

    Like


  222. @Roissy

    Thanks for noticing. 🙂

    @HH

    You might have a chance but you’ll have to capture her attention by text. Follow the KISS rule – Keep it Simple Stupid (not calling you stupid).

    Contact her the day before not two days before. Don’t drag it out. I think not contacting her right now is better than contact, she’ll think about you more.

    You might have to say something like “ditch your chick for a night – tomorrow 9PM – got this great spot I wanna show ya.

    For the record as someone who is actively dating and being pursued by text at times, I know what works for me. I’m not trying to think like a man, just telling you how women think.

    Like


  223. i hear ya, madras. overzealous atheist nerds bug me too. but in the event that dreher reads this blog post, i wanted it to really get under his skin.

    Like


  224. on June 30, 2009 at 11:27 pm Hollywood Hotsauce

    Maurice

    Appreciate the feedback. Do you think sending the text trying to bring her out is a good idea then?

    Like


  225. @Firepower

    Is the water running?

    Like


  226. It’s not weird, I keep in touch with all my exes and always have.

    Occasionally meeting them for a cup of coffee or something is not weird. Having him regularly come over and cook / clean your house / wash your car / express the dog’s impacted anal glands is weird. If he actually has time for this crap, he is a loser with a capital L. If the guy was any kind of a man, you’d be over at his house cooking and cleaning for him, not the other way around (LR: “no way, I don’t have time for that shit” – yes that is exactly the point, you don’t have time to do that for him, why does he have time to do that for you?).

    Like


  227. on June 30, 2009 at 11:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””””’Hollywood Hotsauce
    Gunslinger

    7th and 8th grade? You definitely need an update for sure.”””””””””’

    lol started at that. Just saying it may take some concerted effort till you can get a chick touching your dick without having to talk to her he he he

    Like


  228. on June 30, 2009 at 11:40 pm Cannon's Canon

    madras:
    “why the “no god” line? It isn’t needed for your arguement and you automatically alienate a subset. God has nothing to do with why 3 is a beta.”

    In the case of #3, God has EVERYTHING to do with why he is beta. The author attempts to prove his point with logic derived from a literal application of the ‘wisdom texts.’ His blog is hosted on the “beliefnet” server. The shame of adultery, to him, is no social weight, simply a failure before his God.

    It has been said here before, at least in the comments, that women (reliably tend to) argue with emotion, while men argue with logic. The piece is well-written from a persuasive standpoint. Debunking the dude’s logic foils his hypothesis.

    You can apply Pascal’s Wager to present-day marriage with opposite results to the religion scenario, for a man at least. The author has tallied his sums incorrectly.

    Like


  229. Unfortunately, I think that many (not all) of the comments about women and adultery in this thread are quite true. Women are more likely to take a new romantic/sexual partner seriously, and thus a married woman who has an affair is more likely to leave her husband rather than re-build her relationship with him.

    BUT I do take exception to one issue that keeps coming up: the beta-tude of a husband usually has very little to do with a wife’s falling out of love with him. This isn’t something I can prove statistically (how could such a thing be proven with statistics anyway?), so I have to resort to personal observation. Here goes: every woman I’ve known who has left her husband or long-time boyfriend, left him for a man who was clearly more beta than her husband or boyfriend. By beta I mean less good-looking, less demanding, and less dominant. The same goes for the men I’ve known who have found themselves suddenly dumped for another man: the Other was always rather dorky in manner and appearance. Rather like the men who have flings or casual encounters with unattractive women, no?

    This used to puzzle me, but eventually I concluded that some women get involved with ***hole-type alphas, or otherwise difficult men, and then discover that they really don’t enjoy that level of drama in day-to-day life. The new men, white golf-shoes, plaid pants and all, are reliable, kind and steady, and apparently for some women who have outgrown adolescent fantasy, that’s what really matters. I’m not saying this is right. It’s still wrong to break up a marriage even if your husband is an alpha. But I don’t think less dominant men need to worry about female infidelity nearly as much as they think they should.

    Like


  230. @Cannon’s Canon:

    But debunking his argument by saying,”THERE IS NO GOD,” isn’t going to debunk it. You can say there is no God, and he’ll probably just get on his knees and pray that you’ll be saved. Telling him God doesn’t exist is irrelevant, because you’re trying to “sway” him.

    Roissy’s argument was strong, however, as someone mentioned previously, the seventh commandment states,”Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    BAM. There you go. You strengthen your argument and imply that his interpretation of the Bible (foundation for his argument) is flawed.

    Like


  231. “Telling him God doesn’t exist is irrelevant, because you’re trying to “sway” him.”
    What I meant here was,”sway him away from God.” He could even think that you’re doing Satan’s work.

    Like


  232. on June 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm Hollywood Hotsauce

    aoefe

    Solid feedback. She’s leaving London on friday though so if I’m going to make some “magic” happen it needs to be quick.

    Gunslinger

    In Dance floor game you can actually do that, chances are you will get blown OR you a dance floor hand job. “He who dares wins” as they say.

    Like


  233. Anyone consider that Dreher is actually trying to lure his wife into admitting to an affair that he suspects?

    Like


  234. on June 30, 2009 at 11:53 pm Tupac Chopra

    Clio:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/#comment-36594

    p.s. What happened to you the other night? I waited and waited but you never showed up. Now the flowers have wilted.

    Like


  235. aoefe

    @Firepower

    Is the water running?

    you’re kinky

    Like


  236. You know, I’ve always wondered if a man that was neither beta nor alpha existed.

    Like


  237. on June 30, 2009 at 11:59 pm Gunslingergregi

    ALiasclio,
    Everyone seems to be getting divorced not just some but most.

    Like


  238. I voted for Rod Dreher, because morons like this affect our State’s public policy. Rod may have secret cuckold fetishes, but when those get projected onto us through the legislation that he effects, then we are the ones who get screwed by it. Fuck you Rod!

    Like


  239. @gunslinger:

    It’s so true. And no one’s immune to it. There is no formula, no number of years, that ensures that a marriage is safe.

    I’ve been seeing people that have been married 20/25 years getting divorced.

    Some sociologists are arguing that within the next century, with the extended life spans of everyone, and also observing how society has been turning, marriages are going to be a lot less formal, and it will be the norm to have mutliple spouses.

    Like


  240. “But I don’t think less dominant men need to worry about female infidelity nearly as much as they think they should.”

    Interesting comment. Not really supported by Fisher/Langley, bit interesting all the same.

    Like


  241. @HH- only if you have a doable plan, a great plan, to show her an amazing time. show you are exciting, cool, and fun. be that guy, don’t fake it. then she’ll naturally follow.

    @clio- your words of wisdom are truly sad – namely, that women have sex *at all* with dudes in white golf shoes and plaid pants. unless those instances of infidelity took place in that movie “blindness”, i’d have a hard time believing it …

    seriously, interesting post. did these incidents take place, perhaps, in a very narrow SWPLish group of people? older perhaps? like the canadian civil service? (just asking.) if so, you may have a sample bias problem. that particular demographic may be informed by a strong enough anti-alpha-male worldview, or simply be old enough, to override the biomechanical infidelity imperatives that were discussed above. other groups – younger, less educated/indoctrinated, might have behaved differently.

    thoughts?

    Like


  242. on July 1, 2009 at 12:05 am Gunslingergregi

    The less dominant men need to worry about it more because they have a harder time finding a new woman.

    Like


  243. on July 1, 2009 at 12:05 am Gunslingergregi

    unless it is some of somebody cheating on someone else so that makes it ok? The denigration of their soul is fine right.

    Like


  244. “He comes over once sometimes twice per week max…usually for a few hours. That’s the way he is….if you guys don’t like it, well piss off.”

    You’re using him and you know it.

    An honest person would admit that this is way beyond normal, and tell him that while you appreciate his efforts, it is time for him to move on.

    Like


  245. @aliasclio, novaseeker:

    Do you think this might be because less dominant men, assuming people marry other people of their same range (one the 1-10 scale), marry women that are 6s and below, and therefore may not be the recipient of seduction of PUAs?

    Say two 5s are married, they’re not going to cheat on each other with other 5s, unless they happen to be swingers or have some sort of fetish for it.

    Like


  246. Mandy! XD

    @Firepower:

    You’re just mad because I compared you to a cat.

    im a dog person – like lilgrl

    Like


  247. mandy:

    yea i do assume bad things out of you probably because your young like me or maybe because i fuck around alot.

    as for your alpha and beta comment: a man has to be one or the other. sometimes at any given time. some men are alpha with men, but beta with women, and vice-versa. its a spectrum.

    Like


  248. on July 1, 2009 at 12:10 am Tupac Chopra

    In fairness to Lady Rain, I don’t think her situation with Antonio Eunuchio is as bad as some of you all are making it out to be.

    I’ve seen that kind of dynamic before: former fuck-buddy guy who gets laid on the regular still enjoying some platonic down-time with an ex because she is smarter than the girls he usually dates.

    Although I do agree the cleaning and sweeping bit is a little beyond the pale.

    Like


  249. @LR

    Statement – 2009-06-30 – (today)
    “Holy shit, dude how many times do I have to tell you. I broke up with him over A YEAR AGO. There has been no sex, no romance, no promises of sex, nothing. We’re FRIENDS. He sleeps with women and dates, he’s not trying to “get” anything at all. We’re best friends, is that hard to comprehend?”

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/june-2009-beta-of-the-month/#comment-97990

    Statement – 2009-05-22 aka May 22
    “One year later he is still trying to be with me and does so much for me by choice even though I told him I don’t want to be/never will be with him. He’s a wonderful guy, but I’m not “settling” just because he loves ME….”

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/how-to-prey-on-womens-insecurities/#comment-83885

    In the May post you mention he loves YOU and you’d be settling for him. You also say he is still TRYING to be with you.

    Now today you say you’re friends and he’s not trying to “get” anything at all.

    Which is it? Cuz behind door number one its/he’s beta and behind door number two – oh wait its still beta.

    LR you’ll respond but there’s really no need, the evidence speaks for itself.

    Like


  250. “Do you think this might be because less dominant men, assuming people marry other people of their same range (one the 1-10 scale), marry women that are 6s and below, and therefore may not be the recipient of seduction of PUAs?”

    Hmmm.

    PUAs and naturals will definitely do a cute 6 at the office, or even a cute 5.

    That’s the issue, really: high status men will “do” lower women, because sexual availability is, in itself, attractive. So some will do 4-7 on Monday to Thursday, and then date 8s and 9s on the weekend.

    And when they marry to an 8, they may still do 6s and 7s at the office.

    Like


  251. on July 1, 2009 at 12:18 am Hollywood Hotsauce

    maurice

    Word! I’ll report back on how it goes.

    Like


  252. on July 1, 2009 at 12:18 am Gunslingergregi

    Men need to evolve.

    If woman want to marry carreers so bad

    We need to give them what they want.

    Treat marriage like a job.

    Pay them a salary until they leave.

    Give them timetables and definete guidlines on what is expected.

    Whatever is extra that you require will help them advance from temp to fulltime.

    Make it a no right to work law like texas can fire them for any reason.

    Like


  253. @collegeboy:

    “yea i do assume bad things out of you probably because your young like me or maybe because i fuck around alot. ”
    1)How old are you?
    2)Just by going of your username: you’re in college. Lots of people do that in college. that’s the only thing I’m not looking forward to in college, so I’m staying in an all-girls dorm.

    “as for your alpha and beta comment: a man has to be one or the other. sometimes at any given time. some men are alpha with men, but beta with women, and vice-versa. its a spectrum.

    hmmm…

    I know some people that I couldn’t place in either category. That’s why I was wondering. They’re probably some sort of mix or something.

    Like


  254. on July 1, 2009 at 12:26 am Cannon's Canon

    Mandy:
    “But debunking his argument by saying,”THERE IS NO GOD,” isn’t going to debunk it.”
    You’re right, though I should have been more elaborate. The actions of men and women are incongruous with biblical ideals. In the realm of adultery, women naturally stray further from the line than men if given such free reign from social pressures that they are today. This alone confounds Dreher’s logic of demonizing his own capacity for biblical sin far beyond his wife’s. The inconsistency is amplified in terms of evo-psych alpha/beta mating patterns as an unsustainable system.

    That point-blank statement will not win any debates. Roissy might have seemed more credible to the blindly-religious had he not played that card. Practicing hedonists must be egoists to a great degree, and egoists must be agnostic/atheist to a great degree. Egoist alphas have been spreading their seed long before organized religion came around.

    Like


  255. blech. i used to loathe the prototypical buttboy ala raine. now, in this instance, I merely pity this individual. if she had bigger balls she’d take him out back and put him out of his misery

    but she’d lose his groovy tidying-up technique

    mout

    Like


  256. Re; The God Question
    No type of language is more redundantly symbolic and opague than god-talk. It is so possible to be agreeing on a point (in actual fact) while engaged in a defacto bitter, destructive apparent debate when religion is in the mix.
    IMHO, ice cold nihilism is an attractive fascination for an over-intellectualized 19 year old with time on his hands and a weakness for Neithzean aphorisms. But adults cannot think that way no matter how much they want to. Because you always end up making your major life choices as if you actually care. So, looking for coherence means looking at some kind of semi rational belief as opposed to a cute but obviously self-contradictory nihilism.

    Like


  257. novaseeker said:

    “Hmmm.

    PUAs and naturals will definitely do a cute 6 at the office, or even a cute 5.

    That’s the issue, really: high status men will “do” lower women, because sexual availability is, in itself, attractive. So some will do 4-7 on Monday to Thursday, and then date 8s and 9s on the weekend.

    And when they marry to an 8, they may still do 6s and 7s at the office.”
    Well, that killed my theory.

    I also wonder if a girl’s idea of what is long term relationship material changes as she gets older.

    Back when my friends and I were all single, we’d occassionally talk about boys. One of my friends who is serious about marriage and children would say about all the naturals,”They’re not relationship material.”

    However, plenty of girls trip over each other to try to be these guys’ flavors of the week.

    So I’m wondering.

    Like


  258. @aeofe- OK, that was a little scary, being able to cite LR’s posts to that degree. and i thought *i* spent too much time here .. yeesh… but, point made. respect.

    Like


  259. on July 1, 2009 at 12:37 am Willard Libby

    Why isn’t Mark Sanford one of the Beta of the Month losers?

    And what about Limbaugh’s point that the chickmedia is giving him a break because they think he was genuinely in love with the woman.

    Like


  260. on July 1, 2009 at 12:38 am Cannon's Canon

    Tupac:
    “I’ve seen that kind of dynamic before: former fuck-buddy guy who gets laid on the regular still enjoying some platonic down-time with an ex because she is smarter than the girls he usually dates.

    Although I do agree the cleaning and sweeping bit is a little beyond the pale.”

    Consider the source of the rundown of this dynamic. This situation could be much, much worse than what’s been revealed. I’m friends with a couple of girls I used to hook up with a long time ago, and my altruistic gestures are consigned to things like helping move apartments, occasional birthday flowers, the odd extra drink from the bar… and these are all reciprocated to a great degree.

    What’s really more likely in the case of Eunuchio? I bet he also babysits on little or no notice and has certainly not been convinced that he will never get sex down the road. Dude still gets my vote this month.

    Hate it or not, Dreher still cashed a check for publishing his drivel.

    Like


  261. on July 1, 2009 at 12:41 am Cannon's Canon

    “ice cold nihilism is an attractive fascination for an over-intellectualized 19 year old with time on his hands and a weakness for Neithzean aphorisms.”

    is that supposed to be me?

    Like


  262. “I also wonder if a girl’s idea of what is long term relationship material changes as she gets older.

    Back when my friends and I were all single, we’d occassionally talk about boys. One of my friends who is serious about marriage and children would say about all the naturals,”They’re not relationship material.”

    However, plenty of girls trip over each other to try to be these guys’ flavors of the week.

    So I’m wondering.”

    @Mandy —

    I would think that young women of your age are not *really* about LTR material, as it were. That’s not a critique, but you’re quite young to be concerned about long term prospects at your age. So I would see the tripping over each other as a natural thing — what is happening, as far as I can tell, is that your friends are trying to woo one of those guys to be theirs … eventually they will learn that for those guys either (1) they will never commit to anyone (e.g. Clooney), or (2) if they do commit it will be to a 9 or 10. BUT … and this is the main takeaway … they will sex 5-7s every night of the week, making them *think* they have a chance to woo them, but simply getting off with them.

    This is the reality of natural alphas. Any woman who wants to respect herself will steer a wide berth around them, but I know well that the tingling is a big issue in trying to do that.

    Like


  263. Pat on the ass for aoefe! Good detective work is always appreciated.

    Like


  264. on July 1, 2009 at 12:46 am Tupac Chopra

    is that supposed to be me?

    And here I thought he was talking about me.

    Like


  265. @Maurice

    I started commenting almost at the same time LR arrived and I remembered that one post very well. To me it seemed like she was bragging about how he loved HER but she wouldn’t settle and it ticked me off. So when she commented today it wasn’t hard for me to remember the different stories.

    Oh and I have a blog post I just wrote kind of highlighting a comment you made. 🙂

    Like


  266. @cptnapalm

    Phew you called me detective, I was kind of worried someone might say lawyer and I know how y’all feel about lawyer chicks – just sayin.

    Like


  267. Mande

    You said the naturals are not “relationship material.” Does this mean that your extremely fuckable colleagues will ignore naturals and aim all of their fucking energies at non-naturals??? ie relationship with provider dupes????

    Like


  268. In general, the degree of Betatude is in proportion to :

    A) How beaten down a man is IN RELATION TO THE OPTIONS HE COULD HAVE, if he had the tiniest awareness of Game.

    So the billionaire is the most Beta by this measure.

    or,

    B) How pathetically a man thinks that being super nice and helpful to women will get him anything.

    On this measure, the Social Conservative (a loser class in and of itself) runs the billionaire close.

    So the SocialCon is the most pathetic, but the billionaire SHOULD have dramatically more options than this.

    Both sicken me.

    The Lady Rain betaboy may not really exist, for all we know. She could be exaggerating about the level of what he does for her.

    Like


  269. Social conservatives are a total, total failure.

    For all their ‘support’ of marriage, all they do is empty sermonizing about honor and chivalry and duty. They are 50+ years behind the times.

    Their sermonizing, against legal incentives in favor of divorce, are about as effective as a pea-shooter against steel.

    These idiots are not within a million miles of realizing that CHANGING ANTI-MALE, ANTI-FAMILY DIVORCE LAWS is the only way to preserve what they want to preserve.

    How stupid social conservatives are.

    Like


  270. Why isn’t Mark Sanford one of the Beta of the Month losers?

    And what about Limbaugh’s point that the chickmedia is giving him a break because they think he was genuinely in love with the woman.

    The second question answers the first 😉

    Sanford may be stupid, and somewhat beta for having an affair with a single-mom. But he doesn’t register high on the beta scale. In fact, if he weathers this storm and keeps his job, he will have proven himself to be an outright alpha.

    Like


  271. Why isn’t Mark Sanford one of the Beta of the Month losers?

    there’s nothing beta about falling in love.
    unless it’s unrequited.
    …paging antonio eunuchio

    Like


  272. on July 1, 2009 at 1:03 am Gunslingergregi

    Guys usually hold back a little but woman will tear another womans guts out.

    Remember that it is usefull information.

    Like


  273. Mandy–

    This is why I’m seriously considering shooting for older men.

    That is wise and you should.

    Like


  274. Tood hits the nail on the head.

    Like


  275. but he and I go to his comedy shows together and to dinner once in awhile

    Lady Rain = Athena
    Italian friend = David Alexander

    The Italian friend has probably “dropped out” like David, and uses Lady Rain as a substitute for a real girlfriend. Yes, he may cook and clean for her, but if she does anything, he can leave with no repurcussions, and he can move on and find another girl to use to fill his beta male ego and drive to feel “useful”.

    Like


  276. @Mandy the Wise

    “This is why I’m seriously considering shooting for older men.”

    Smart thinking chickie.

    Like


  277. Mark Sanford is NOT a Beta. It appears that people here still do not know what a Beta is.

    Mark Sanford had an affair, and his wife still will not leave him. Nor will the wives of John Edwards or Elliot Spitzer leave them.

    An Alpha is someone who can cheat on his wife without her leaving him. Sanford is an alpha. He may have been a poor steward of his political career, but he is an Alpha in the sexual market.

    Like


  278. “why is a friendship so unimaginable? ”

    and

    “Do I know he would be with me in a heartbeat? Yes, he tells me so all the time.”

    Are you really this clueless?

    Like


  279. The billionaire is one of the better candidates so far for BoTY.

    Dreher’s discussion was all theoretical – maybe if actually confronted with his wife coming home smelling like latex, his latent alpha would kick in and he would do the right thing for himself. Probably not, but the billionaire has a long record of actual beta behavior, while Dreher just has a mindless rant about his aspirations of betahood.

    Like


  280. The blond chick would ‘do’ Sanford in a New York minute – pay attention around the 35 second mark. I’d say that would make Sanford an alpha.

    Like


  281. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20788?in=58:28&out=66:22

    Ooops it wouldn’t embed, try this link. heh heh

    Like


  282. I agree with Willard Libby on Sanford’s weak behaviors:
    -apology was meandering with TMI and excessive tears
    -abandons 4 sons on Father’s Day (lack of self control or manipulation by mistress)
    -multiple apologies
    -married an exceptionally wealthy woman who funded his campaigns and propped him up in office
    -confessional type add-on apologies
    -lost battle with congress on tarp money
    -will lose office and status

    Like


  283. Another blunder in the link above it’s at the almost the 59 minute mark…it starts close enough to it. Sorry for the repeated posts. Jeesh.

    Like


  284. “This is why I’m seriously considering shooting for older men.”

    Smart thinking chickie.

    I’d spin it into something rather absurd and in-line with my general posting habits, but I’ve never liked the idea of women dating older men. It drove me crazy when my female friends did it, and I refused it when female friends were suggesting it.

    Like


  285. If Jenny Stanford stays with him, it will only be in deference to her sons. Her comments are all about her sons; she shows little concern for the beta husband.

    Like


  286. “I broke up with HIM. He tells me he loves me, he hang out, he likes to cook, etc. You people cannot seriously tell me that you don’t know any people that do nice things for you.’

    It is not at all normal for an ex who is not your kid’s dad to do things like that for you. Come on. Yes, you broke up with him, and now he caters to you.

    Every man on this board knows what that is. He is hanging on, and you are encouraging it.

    Put him off. It will help him. If you care for him, you will do it. He may be dating, but no serious GF will tolerate her BF cooking meals for his ex-GF. Seriously. Not a feminist issue, just a human one.

    Like


  287. “If Jenny Stanford stays with him, it will only be in deference to her sons. Her comments are all about her sons; she shows little concern for the beta husband.”

    @anony —

    I think it should be automatic for men and women to leave cheating spouses. Zero tolerance. No matter what the circumstances. That would encourage better behavior among men and women alike. I have no sympathy for Sanford.

    Like


  288. @cptnapalm

    Cpt said to LR “Are you really this clueless?”

    Yes, yes she is. 😦

    Like


  289. on July 1, 2009 at 1:41 am Cannon's Canon

    “The billionaire is one of the better candidates so far for BoTY.”

    You’ve gotta be kidding me! The guy’s celebrity debutante model/actress girlfriend goes out on a coke whore binge when confronted with his marriage proposal. He in turn dumps her, cutting off contact and kicking her out of their shared apartment. She moved back in with her parents, who publicly criticize his intolerance. He has made no statements to the media. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM THE GUY??? Putting out a sex tape and appearing with a harem of new girls in public? The guy is not a celebrity; he is an heir. His EX-fiance was the famous one, and the feminized media is reporting HER story, not his. Roissy’s characterization today does not tell the whole, updated story.

    The beta Red Sox owner is a much bigger chump for settling so much lower than his means with a less-feminine, more feminist divorce candidate, and he actually went through with the marriage.

    Dreher is a chump, but he writes for money to a feminized audience, religion-based or not. He is no different than any random male on the feministing boards save his sophistication and aesthetic.

    The beta of the month is the white knight punchline of the lying, aging, rural single mother. How is this disputable?

    Like


  290. @nova,
    no tolerance? that’s pretty extreme, no? no forgiveness? no contributing factors? no second chance?

    Like


  291. “no tolerance? that’s pretty extreme, no? no forgiveness? no contributing factors? no second chance?”

    Nope.

    Experience counts. And I tried that approach, and will never ever try it again.

    Like


  292. yo roissy… am I being moderated for some reason? I didn’t use the O-word, or post any URLs…

    … the fuck?

    [no. blame wordpress.]

    Like


  293. @novaseeker:

    “I would think that young women of your age are not *really* about LTR material, as it were. That’s not a critique, but you’re quite young to be concerned about long term prospects at your age.”
    Oh, no, my friends aren’t trying to get these guys to be theirs. They don’t try. They acknowledge that they are out of their league.

    They don’t deny their attractiveness, though, but I guess they look for other things. Maybe these are the same girls that will, in later years, attract a few alphas, then not want to settle for betas. Or maybe these are the same girls who stick with betas and are unhappy. I don’t know. They seem happy now.

    I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on. Something happens between the teen years and young adulthood that creates these setups, I think.

    Like


  294. “I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on. Something happens between the teen years and young adulthood that creates these setups, I think.”

    @Mandy —

    Me too, in the sense of trying to see what is in store for my son in the next ten years :=-)

    Like


  295. @mandy,
    and between teen years and 30, 40, 50 the men who are attractive will change. The wolf pack here will disagree with me, but some of the popular attractive “naturals” in teen years will demote themselves as the decades progress. Other men will become more confident and popular.

    Like


  296. Damn, Roissy.

    I wanna be just like you when I grow up, I wanna see if a girl will commit suicide because she’ll never, EVER again get a piece of me and my totally-manly-masculine-awesomeness … all because she royally screwed up (i.e. cheated on me).

    Like


  297. It’s “Vinny-the-beta” from now on, it seems. VTB.

    Like


  298. I wanna be just like you when I grow up, I wanna see if a girl will commit suicide because she’ll never, EVER again get a piece of me and my totally-manly-masculine-awesomeness … all because she royally screwed up (i.e. cheated on me).

    hi vincent.

    Like


  299. when DA gives you props, you know you’re doing something wrong

    There’s nothing preventing a man from doing pump and dumps to hot, sexually attractive women, and spending his time on a platonic relationship with a close, yet less attractive female friend for companionship or the desire to feel useful.

    Like


  300. Setting the record straight

    Roissy said :”aoefe and others have eventually caught on to your lies and gutter morality”

    Honestly I saw it day 1 of her comments, there was no eventually about it. See the very first post I made and it was about her. Excuse the coarseness. I’d been reading for a while and it seemed to me men were learning how to get/game women and then in walks LR with her stupidity (yes that is what it is) and men are all over her like a dirty shirt. I really believed she should be ignored. Beyond a couple of comments at the top of the post Roissy (How to prey on an insecure woman) had refused to say anything to her and I thought that smart. See second comment I made to that effect.

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/how-to-prey-on-womens-insecurities/#comment-84100

    L.R. needed to be ignored after a couple comments, simple as that. Roissy got it right.

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/how-to-prey-on-womens-insecurities/#comment-84100

    Side Note: These comments were made the same day LR spoke up, I didn’t need to figure her out. And for the record it took me a loooooooong time to find my comments in that HUGE thread!!

    @LR

    And I KNOW you’re reading. I’ve never flirted with Roissy ever, but I think you’re a little jealous cuz you can’t have him.

    Like


  301. trollfanning:
    There’s nothing preventing a man from doing pump and dumps to hot, sexually attractive women, and spending his time on a platonic relationship with a close, yet less attractive female friend for companionship or the desire to feel useful.

    sure, but why bother with that twisted arrangement when he can do better by having a great relationship with a hot babe he is also fucking, and getting companionship from his usual cadre of friends and a feeling of usefulness from his work and hobbies.

    ps stop being a retard.

    Like


  302. Hogwash. LR knows I’ve been pillaging her ass for over a year now.

    Like


  303. forget about DA, Roissy. It’s a waste of time.

    Like


  304. Re: Aoefe

    I smell cat fight. 🙂

    Re: Roissy

    If you can secure sex with a hot woman, why would you waste your time on a relationship with her? Once you have sex with her and grow tired of her, you repeat the cycle by find another hot woman. Since when were hot women useful for relationships? As I said, there’s nothing wrong with what Vincent does if LR happens to be a good friend. It can add to a fulfilling life with other friends and hobbies.

    And being useful at work isn’t the same as being useful to somebody that cares about you.

    Like


  305. is it tard, or is it troll?:
    And being useful at work isn’t the same as being useful to somebody that cares about you.

    if he nurses a burning unrequited desire for her, as is the case with vincent and the dull-witted lady cunt, then she is not demonstrating she cares for him by withholding access to her pussy.

    at least with work he gets a paycheck for his trouble.

    Like


  306. First things first I pasted the same link twice in my post…crap! Suffice it to say I was against LR from the beginning, but I wasn’t as concerned with her morality (although yes that too), but more from her seemingly inability to argue effectively…it bugged me. I grew fonder of her, well maybe that’s too strong a word. I grew to not loath her? Something like that.

    @LR

    Sweetie…(sigh)…you are not going to get what I’m going to say…and that saddens me…it really does. But here goes nothing:

    Do you not see (speaking slowly here) that what you say in your first message in May confirms Roissy’s assertion that your ex is a fool (beta behaviour) for hanging around hoping against hope that he’ll either bed you or wed you? You say he LOVES you and you say he tries to please you by doing things and he gets NOTHING in return (well except to be your BFF). Have you learned NOTHING by being here? (ooops I’m speeding up my speech, slow it down again, and I’ll enunciate) Do you understand dear the definition of Beta?

    You claimed today that he was simply your friend and wanted nothing more, your FIRST post belies this. Do YOU not hear what I am saying? Do you NOT get it? I know you don’t dear heart and that’s pretty sad. It means you won’t take Roissy’s advice and settle.

    Oh why are you trying to make this about a romance with Roissy? Honey I’m a woman and it’s been clear to me from day 1 that all you want is for Roissy to turn whatever attention he can give you to him. Good or bad. Truthfully until today Roissy had never even typed my name…when you find proof to the otherwise I’ll eat crow. But I know I’m right.

    I have no desire to respond to you any further, quite frankly you wear me out.

    Like


  307. forget about DA, Roissy. It’s a waste of time.

    David’s life is relatively empty, so he blathers on with the diarehhea of the mouth to annoy the readers here. It is a waste of time since his solution to his problems requires a time machine and for him to become the beta chump that bribes a (white) woman with an income stream and good credit.

    Like


  308. on July 1, 2009 at 3:08 am Willard Libby

    anony – I agree with Willard Libby on Sanford’s weak behaviors:

    -apology was meandering with TMI and excessive tears

    -abandons 4 sons on Father’s Day (lack of self control or manipulation by mistress)

    -multiple apologies

    -married an exceptionally wealthy woman who funded his campaigns and propped him up in office

    -confessional type add-on apologies

    -lost battle with congress on tarp money

    -will lose office and status

    There you go. It’s not just “falling in love” that is the evidence of massive betatude, it’s all of the above.

    He had an affair and got caught.

    He didn’t have to turn into a blubberingly inarticulate wussbag in front of the global media.

    Like


  309. on July 1, 2009 at 3:09 am Cannon's Canon

    “perhaps not a government construct as much as a feministing sock puppet, or viral vector.”

    one and the same? after all, there are many “rights” but only one left. the liberal-trending youth also dominates the internet demographic. political parties know where to advertise.

    for the record, my tinfoil hat has a flat brim, sans-serif ‘NY’ logo, and is worn at a 15 degree angle.

    Like


  310. For the record I voted Beta #2 and after all is said and done here tonight, I made the right choice.

    Like


  311. if he nurses a burning unrequited desire for her, as is the case with vincent and the dull-witted lady cunt, then she is not demonstrating she cares for him by withholding access to her pussy

    I suspect that she’s doing him a favour by not having sex with him. He won’t be disappointed, and she won’t nag him about being an awful sex partner who pales in comparison to an alpha.

    Besides, a nice, good bear hug is a great sign of appreciation. Being a lame pity fuck certainly isn’t.

    Like


  312. anony AKA filthy man-hating cunt who is against mandatory paternity testing:
    A young woman’s hypergamy tendencies are pathologic and will fail her children.

    you may as well describe a young woman’s eating and shitting tendencies as pathologic.

    I agree with Willard Libby on Sanford’s weak behaviors:
    -apology was meandering with TMI and excessive tears

    meandering arguments about the definition of “is”, lip biting, and sorrowful prostration did nothing to dent bill clinton’s alpha cred.
    or: these aren’t the tears you’re looking for.

    -abandons 4 sons on Father’s Day (lack of self control or manipulation by mistress)

    no dice, anony. flipping the finger to family responsibilities is alpha.

    -multiple apologies

    the opportunistic tears of an alpha.

    -married an exceptionally wealthy woman who funded his campaigns and propped him up in office

    and that wasn’t enough to keep him faithful. there’s a lesson there, anony.

    -confessional type add-on apologies

    jim mcgreevey school of method acting.

    -lost battle with congress on tarp money

    irrelevant to his alphaness. he would’ve lost that whether or not he flew to argentina to be with his lover. and last i checked he’s still governor. if he played his apologia right, he should be safe in office.

    -will lose office and status

    maybe. but that won’t be because he leveraged his alphaness to cheat. it will be because the public expects their alphas to behave like betas.

    If Jenny Stanford stays with him, it will only be in deference to her sons.

    you don’t know this.
    but i know why you hope this.

    Her comments are all about her sons; she shows little concern for the beta husband.

    wrong. he’s alpha.
    anony, answer me something. have you ever been cheated on?

    Like


  313. Damn. I just remembered where I’ve seen Jodi Gordon’s horse faced mug before. She is an actress off a well known Australian soap opera. She isn’t very attractive. Skinny, no tits, big horse teeth.

    As a proud Australian, I am insulted. We have far better looking actresses who Stokes could have picked to slut it up under his nose.

    Like


  314. aoefe:
    For the record I voted Beta #2 and after all is said and done here tonight, I made the right choice.

    i predict a surge in voting for #2 after tonight’s comments.

    Like


  315. Roissy’s assertion that your ex is a fool (beta behaviour)

    Aoefe, what’s wrong with being a beta?

    It means you won’t take Roissy’s advice and settle.

    Settling will make her miserable, and ensures that her son will learn that marriage is pointless.

    Like


  316. @roissy,
    compare Sanford’s apology with Sptizer’s . Spitzer’s was decisive, short, no tears. sanford was a crybaby.

    Missing Fathers’ day is negligent.

    Like


  317. no dice, anony. flipping the finger to family responsibilities is alpha.

    think about that R.
    you are squirreling around so hard to diss me, that you’ve lost your bearings.

    Like


  318. you don’t know this.
    but i know why you hope this.

    I know this by listening to her resolve.
    For some reason, you desire to believe I’ve been cheated on, and thus have distorted instincts. Not the case. I could hear in her voice the maternal instincts to do what is best for her sons.

    Like


  319. @anony:

    “and between teen years and 30, 40, 50 the men who are attractive will change. The wolf pack here will disagree with me, but some of the popular attractive “naturals” in teen years will demote themselves as the decades progress. Other men will become more confident and popular.”
    This is completely true. I mentioned something about late bloomers in the “Quotes of the Day” thread.

    Most of the “naturals” in the teen years are naturals because they are 9s and 10s. Not necessarily because they have the subtle social skills required to be really, really attractive guys (personality wise).

    So while they’re not necessarily beta, they’re not at the top of their game.

    Late bloomers, usually guys that start looking their best when they hit their 30s, gain more confidence around that time due to life successes, etc. are just better. They’re the real deal. They’re not some immature cocky little boy.

    Like


  320. peak troll:
    Aoefe, what’s wrong with being a beta?

    to ask is to answer.

    Settling will make her miserable,

    maybe. but then so will a life of loneliness. she has to decide which misery is worse.
    and before you say it, she *will* have to settle. being a prematurely aged single mom with a shitty personality and of questionable integrity guarantees that.

    Like


  321. @Roissy

    “i predict a surge in voting for #2 after tonight’s comments”

    Right as usual I suspect.

    (oh LR see how I commented to Roissy…see that? Are you very sure that qualifies as a flirt? Are you? I have a big suggestion for you if you’re a reader. He’s Just Not That Into You)

    Like


  322. >Trust me on this, Rod, new pussy is AMAZING.
    From experience I can attest that this is 100% true

    Like


  323. Roissy said:

    “the opportunistic tears of an alpha.”

    Play-quoting time:

    “STELLLAAAAAAA!”

    Stanley Kowalski all the way.

    Like


  324. she has to decide which misery is worse.

    Being alone is far better than being with a beta.

    Like


  325. @LR
    “while I …..have never thought you were important enough to post about in my own blog”

    I KNOW I said I wasn’t going to engage with you again…but…you started your blog because of Roissy. Your first entry was May 28th and you called it Creepy Things that Men Do. You also list him in your blog list as “The Shrieking Schoolgirl” Roissy in DC” I’d say that qualifies as he hits a nerve in you, wouldn’t you say? Jeesh you make it WAAAAY too easy chick!

    Before you fire one of those scud missiles I’ll admit Roissy’s blog prompted me to start mine.

    Like


  326. Hey I should join the blog bandwagon.

    I could write about boring details of my life and throw in bad jokes here or there.

    I give it 3 weeks.

    Like


  327. cunt:
    compare Sanford’s apology with Sptizer’s . Spitzer’s was decisive, short, no tears. sanford was a crybaby.

    the proof of sanford’s alphaness is not in the management of his tears after getting caught, but in his actions leading up to the apology.
    oh, and there is the little matter of him being a governor and all.

    Missing Fathers’ day is negligent.

    so is leaving semen on a mistress’s blue dress.

    you are squirreling around so hard to diss me, that you’ve lost your bearings.

    not at all. your mistake is in assuming that duty = alpha. it does not.

    I know this by listening to her resolve.

    chick logic.

    For some reason, you desire to believe I’ve been cheated on, and thus have distorted instincts.

    you have a fear of being cheated on. this is why you cannot think clearly when presented with cases of alphas doing like they do on the discovery channel.

    Not the case. I could hear in her voice the maternal instincts to do what is best for her sons.

    naturally, she is in a state of pain, brought upon her by the public spotlight as much as the fact of her husband’s cheating. most wives of public figures in the early days of a discovery of infidelity will put on a brave face and keep a tight lid on their emotions, and the maternal instinct to protect the homefront will often be the instinct they retreat to first under duress. but this short window of vulnerability tells us nothing about how she will behave once the dust has settled. if history is any guide, she will do like most wives of high status men and stay with her cheating husband.

    for most women, the permanent loss of a high status husband is more painful than the humiliation of infidelity.

    now if sanford was a beta, we could expect mrs. sanford to react very differently.

    Like


  328. @Mandy the hurtful

    “I could write about boring details of my life and throw in bad jokes here or there.”

    Hey!! My jokes aren’t that bad. heh 😉

    Like


  329. on July 1, 2009 at 3:47 am Cannon's Canon

    Panel of feminist big-government conspirators:
    ” “5. her imprint has been stamped thoroughly on another message board before this – should the pattern hold, her likeness will leave here eventually and spread her message with equal frequency in another “anti-feminist” forum that targets a different demographic.”

    I have no idea what you’re referring to here at all.”

    Your likeness was immediately recognized by someone from the ‘cracked’ forum (i believe that was the name). you had supposedly filled their board with the same nonsense for quite some time. obviously that was a different government employee crafting those comments, since you do not remember. Your team should coordinate better.

    The rest of your counterpoints are self-defeating, appeal to an emotional congress, and are pointless to debunk. Stripping is not shameful, but the thought of others having sex is gross? A stupefying proposition: I am over-fucking-whelmed.

    Like


  330. If she stays with him medium-term , it is for her sons.
    Let’s watch to see what happens after the youngest son leaves home. Jenny Sanford is different than the others on parade that we’ve seen. Gov. Sanford is a weak hobbled man, nothing like Spitzer.

    We are both speculating here, so only time will tell.

    Like


  331. @aoefe:

    I was talking about me, not you. ;-;

    Like


  332. @mandy the sweet

    I knew that chickie. 🙂 I was makin a funny. Now off to bed for me.

    Like


  333. your mistake is in assuming that duty = alpha. it does not.

    Missing Father’s Day to visit a mistress is beyond the pale negligent. How alpha can he be with his sons hating him?

    Like


  334. on July 1, 2009 at 3:57 am Willard Libby

    Plus, remember Sanford threw it all away on a not very good looking divorced woman in her 40s with two kids.

    And then cried when he got caught.

    Sanford is not an Alpha, just an over achieving beta.

    Like


  335. @whiskey:

    Biting Beaver? Are you serious?

    ….I don’t even want to know what she was thinking when she came up with that name.

    Like


  336. on July 1, 2009 at 4:03 am Willard Libby

    whiskey – What is changing is we are generating a lot more ….Emme’s (I miss her! Dang it!)

    Here’s porky’s blog.

    The typical pig’s knuckles of the fatty.

    Side view of tubby’s blubber face.

    Like


  337. on July 1, 2009 at 4:13 am Cannon's Canon

    “As for the youth vote, non-existent. Seniors outnumber youth by a fairly large margin, and vote something like 75% of the time vs. around 38% for youth. America is getting older and that’s not changing.”

    i don’t dispute that figure, but off the cuff, the younger the voting demographic, the higher the skew of self-proclaimed liberals. (apologies for not digging up stats to link)

    i have read multiple “conservative” opinion pieces that the republican party will command an ever-shrinking voter base as generations pass unless they significantly change some fundamentals. it’s not hip to be square these days. although women presently dictate elections, their politicians are undeniably winning over the malleable youth vote. consider it “preventive warfare.” the more passionate and socially-accepted young liberals become, the more they’ll continue to vote that way in the future.

    the poor economy will also drive older voters toward a more supportive government as pensions default, inflation strikes, and solvency shrivels, but this does not need to be campaigned for (as it’s inevitable).

    Like


  338. doug1 said:
    “Cheating men rarely want to leave their wives, as “other women” are regularly warned by their girlfriends. ”

    Exactly. I like having my meals cooked for me. Having my beer and wine bought for me. Paperwork done…. it’s like having a personal assistant at home. The sex is sometimes good too. I’m stringing her along as long as I can.

    In a way I’m turning into what is vilified here the most, a “soft polygamist”. What’s wrong if I can get away with it?

    Like


  339. There should be some sort of an alert when delicious war debates get lost in the sea. I almost missed this.

    whiskey: The inability to justify pre-emptive war was a function of women in politics, voting. Prior to widespread women’s suffrage, “peace activists” were marginal. Examples of pre-emptive Wars include the Spanish-American War, Mexican-American Wars, the Afghan Wars, Barbary Coast Wars, Zulu Wars, Boer Wars, and so on.

    The Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war were the kind of land-grabs that make America the world’s laughingstock for claiming special world police rights. The Barbary wars were an actually justified response to pirate extortion, not pre-emptive in any way. The Boer wars mainly manage to discredit the anglo claims to being so much more humane and civilized than those Nazi Germans.

    No idea on Zulu wars, but if Europeans hadn’t messed with Africa so much, maybe we wouldn’t have to tolerate so much today. And I have no idea which Afghan wars you’re talking about (has there ever been Afghan peace?).

    Casualties would have been low, material losses even less, and Hitler gone very quickly as he had at the time significant enemies among the military, his own party, and the bureaucracy. However, correct there was no political will to do so, because women formed the peace movement and after WWI they had considerable power.

    One thing curiously missing from your collected evidence is that WWI also brought democracy and female suffrage to Germany. So how come Germany was perfectly able to elect Nazis, start a war and, in fact, justify just about every invation as a necessary pre-emptive strike in the great struggle against “Judeo-Bolshevism”?

    And BTW one dirty secret is that the Nazis often were particularily strong with female voters. Nobody ever speaks of that because then me might notice how much of Nazi ideology was simply SWPL stuff of its day.

    Like


  340. i don’t dispute that figure, but off the cuff, the younger the voting demographic, the higher the skew of self-proclaimed liberals. (apologies for not digging up stats to link)

    This has always been true and the complete extinction of conservatives has never happened.

    The two-party system is also good for hiding trends. In Europe the most notable political development is the utter collapse of the traditional left and the rise of the so-called far right aka working-man leftists who are not multicultural liberals and a seemingly permanent isolation of SWPLs in their own social liberal but not working-man leftist parties.

    Like


  341. on July 1, 2009 at 7:48 am Cliff Arroyo

    “your mistake is in assuming that duty = alpha. it does not”

    I couldn’t have said it better, which is why self-proclaimed alphas usually can’t maintain LTRs and are awful fathers. Good spouses and/or parents have to internalize the idea that other people are more than chess pieces to be moved around and disposed of in due time and once they do that they’re ruined as “alphas”.

    Like


  342. Sanford is relatively beta when placed in the in company of State Governors with national ambitions. However, that is such a rarified cohort, it is silly to think of any of them as beta with females. Bill Clinton at times has been quite open about how the quality of women who threw themselves at him improved with each election victory/promotion.
    The US Mexican war did not represent hypocrisy or bad faith by the US. It had been announced a long time before and in plain language that the US intended to expand to the pacific ocean and that no foreign enclaves were to be tolerated. At times other parties believed otherwise but they were mistaken.

    Like


  343. Hollywood Hotsauce:

    Maurice had solid advice. So did aeofe. I’m going to combine the two in a sec.

    One think I absolutely would have done was research ahead of time what was fun and happening in central London that night, and in your situation, not too expensive at all. Then go do it. I mean a fun happening pub kind of thing.

    This txt is ALL WRONG as aoefe diplomatically alluded to w/her keep it short advice:

    “Hey the other night was cool but next time I want to go out with you alone because I think you’re a nice girl but I haven’t really gotten a chance to know you yet”

    Here’s why it was all wrong. The last thing you want to do is have much lower standards for fun than she does. She felt the other night was a loser but maybe possibly you weren’t (by the openness she showed at the end for meeting up again.) So DON”T talk about it being “cool”. The money tickets were an irritiating rip, and you got there late and you were a dork, no touchy or laugh communication during the movie. So no it wasn’t “cool”.

    Next, if/when you compliment a girl, DO NOT MAKE IT GENERIC. It has to be insightful about her or it will do nothing but harm you. It makes you dork otherwise. “I think you’re a nice girl” is possibly the worst compliment you can give a girl under normal circumstances.

    aoefe’s “ditch the gf” short but sweet is good.

    Like


  344. Master Dogen is right about LR: her outing of beta-clinger Vincent is a really shitty move. And novaseeker is right that LR decision to allow vinny-the-beta to continue his pathetically hopeful orbit is callous and selfish beyond belief.

    The point about how much we all know about LR’s life – without even really wanting to – just shows you how much of an attention whore she is. An attention-whore, and a very ugly human being, at bottom.

    That she is too stupid to see aeofe’s deadly take-down of her inconsistent, self-absorbed blather is to her detriment. That she seems to almost enjoy Roissy’s continuing evisceration of her entire being is bordering on disturbing.

    She keeps coming back for more, and amping up the blustery, preening bravado. Methinks that behind her facade of grrrrl-power is a brittle, broken woman who knows just how little she is truly worth and respects only those who heap well-deserved abuse onto her.

    Like


  345. For those who asked me about the phenomenon of women who dump alphas for betas: yes, I have seen this happen, and no, it wasn’t because the married women or their husbands were physically unattractive. I can’t speak for how common it is, just that I’ve seen it happen more often than the beta-for-alpha exchange.

    In one instance, it was because the wife grew tired of her alpha husband’s irritability and the way he seldom showed affection without some stinging criticism of her intelligence or even her appearance, though she was very pretty and attracted men like moths to a candle. She married the beta with whom she took up next – although she did dump him a few years later. In another instance, the alpha man had a real mean streak, and I suspect he took up with his girlfriend entirely for her looks, as they had nothing else in common. She dumped him for a geeky, socially awkward man whom I believe she married. Oh, and another case: a very alpha man I knew was constantly nagging his beautiful girlfriend about how ignorant she was. She left him for a good-looking but less dominant man who was nicer to her.

    I don’t know what the lesson in these cases might be, since I don’t always know how the relationships involved turned out in the end. But I suspect one moral is that it’s possible to over-do the alpha ***hole routine when dealing with women who have many options, unless the woman in your life is so lacking in confidence that she takes all your criticism to heart.

    Like


  346. But I suspect one moral is that it’s possible to over-do the alpha ***hole routine when dealing with women who have many options

    This is especially true of ‘aspiring’ alphas, former betas. As we often hear, congruency is important, and if you’re an alpha asshole one minute, but showing your beta core another, you’ll have the downsides of the asshole without the upsides.

    As someone who has made the mistake above, Roissy’s ‘amused mastery’ pose is a much better one to go for first and easier to stay congruent with. Rather than angrily argue a point, make it quickly with a smirk and change the subject.

    Like


  347. Master Dogen is right about LR: her outing of beta-clinger Vincent is a really shitty move. And novaseeker is right that LR decision to allow vinny-the-beta to continue his pathetically hopeful orbit is callous and selfish beyond belief.

    And let’s not forget that she drew his attention to this blog in the first place because she is an attention whore – ME ME ME, Vincent, look at what I’m writing about ME and what they’re saying about ME!

    Like


  348. I couldn’t have said it better, which is why self-proclaimed alphas usually can’t maintain LTRs and are awful fathers. Good spouses and/or parents have to internalize the idea that other people are more than chess pieces to be moved around and disposed of in due time and once they do that they’re ruined as “alphas”.

    I don’t agree that the only model for an alpha is someone who is a narcissistic manipulator who doesn’t care about the people he’s manipulating. Is this really what it was like for thousands of years before recent decades, when the average man was a lot more alpha than he is now? I doubt it. I think the model back then was the man was dominant, but exercised his dominance and made the decisions in the best interest of his wife and children. He loved them, he wanted the best for them, and he made the decisions accordingly. The idea that a dominant male must be an “awful” husband and father merely because he is dominant is simply untenable and reflects the pernicious influence of feminist propaganda.

    Like


  349. @Master Dogen, A-Bax, Tarl

    I think LR operates under some pretty significant delusions regarding her attractiveness to most men (not talking about looks here). She’s had some men like Vincent make her feel special and unique (snowflake theory) and in her brain she transfers that to every man on earth. She easily distorts truths and in fact I genuinely believes she can’t see the forest of truth for the trees.

    I find it appalling LR told her ex about this site – I thought from the beginning she threw him under the bus of her disdain and now she wanted him to see his own guts splayed all over the streets of Roissy.

    @Vincent the could be man

    What do you really think Vincent? What does your gut tell you? Are you laughing derisively with LR about all the losers on Roissy? Do you feel deep down like LR is the ‘lady’ for you? What she did to you was terrible by human-being standards – do you understand that? I think it’s highly unlikely you both operate with the same delusions. You have some yes, but they’re likely fixable, especially if you stick decide to stick around here.

    @Lady Disdain

    You suck.

    Like


  350. Pupu seconds Clio’s view above. In the short term, many forms of demonstrated dominance (alpha-ness) could attract a woman to settle. In the long term, what keeps a woman, and her heart and mind, is the alpha-ness that combines dominance, self-assurance and overall kindness. Certainly, at that point, many factors, especially when children are involved, can make it harder for a woman to break away from a dominant but mean husband, in which case we are no longer speaking of the use of game for the pursuit of a happy relationship.

    Like


  351. @aeofe- girl-girl smackdown? Hot.

    @clio, S_A, tarl- good points clio – i think nova said it well in yesterday’s thread: there are basically two “attraction” markets – short-term/pickup and LTR. and women tend to confuse them more easily then men. what works for female-to-male attraction – asshole-alpha traits- often work against sustaining LTRs. the flip side of that is that the alpha asshole men in your examples appear to have been equally confused. dominance doesn’t equal disrespect. if you don’t respect your spouse, any l-t relationship is doomed and/or hollow. PUA alphas not respecting their lays, on the other hand, is pretty standard. (from what i’ve read of roosh’s blog, he’s brutally explicit about this.) different set of behaviors and values for the different kinds of relationship – and they don’t mix well. two different markets indeed – a good framework.

    maybe DFH is the dude here who can give details on how to hit that happy medium, having made it work. but it seems pretty basic – be dominant, don’t be an asshole, show basic respect for your significant other.

    Like


  352. on July 1, 2009 at 10:40 am Cliff Arroyo

    Tarl, I’m specifically writing about “alphas” in the meaning used on this blog (roughly PUAs who use game to pursue a nihilistic and promiscuous lifestyle).

    That has just about nothing to do with the traditional meaning where it is about same sex leadership – alpha males are primarily dominant over other males and alpha females almost entirely only over other females.
    Within this framework (as in pack animals) the alpha male is either the only adult male with a harem or the dominant adult male whose primary role is protecting the group and has first (but usually not exclusive) access to sexually receptive females.

    Dominance is a morally neutral concept and there were men who used dominance for good and for the good of their group and just as many who abused their dominant positions.

    Now, for good or ill, a technologically complex civil society cannot be maintained by an exclusive model of male dominance and female subservience. We’re also learning (or soon will) it can’t be maintained by a bunch of single horndogs of both sexes either.

    Just where the sweet spot is in terms of trading off individual autonomy and living up to social norms, and just what the optimum set of social norms are, is a work in progress (if we last that long).

    Like


  353. In honour of today’s Big Day. my countries version of July 4th, I post the following link:

    http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/fashion-beauty/articles/archive/rogers-chatelaine/sex-how_sexy_are_canadian_women_

    Clio and I are both sexy Canadian women – Happy Canada Day!!

    Like


  354. Pupu said the same thing I did in a different way. Pupu may well be a kindred spirit. I wish Pupu wouldn’t refer to herself in the third person all the time, though. Is Pupu related to the muppet Elmo, by any chance?

    Like


  355. It is worth adding that insecurity breeds meanness. So self-assurance should be a crucial ingredient of the most sustaining form of alpha-ness.

    Like


  356. on July 1, 2009 at 10:47 am Cliff Arroyo

    “there are basically two “attraction” markets – short-term/pickup and LTR. and women tend to confuse them more easily then men”

    I think it’s more that men are mostly look at women as they are when they meet them and classify them into fling or LTR camps on that basis.

    Women tend to think ahead more and choose LTRs more on the basis of who they think they can turn them into. The preferred hunk of marble will have lots of resources to share and have lots of rough surfaces to be polished.

    Like


  357. @ Tarl

    The idea that a dominant male must be an “awful” husband and father merely because he is dominant is simply untenable and reflects the pernicious influence of feminist propaganda.

    It’s really a question of priorities – or more specifically priority – THE priority. For most of our history, THE priority was passing on genes – sustaining your line. Today, for many, hedonism and the pursuit of pleasure is THE priority.

    Roissy doesn’t care that his father’s name and DNA will die with him, so there is no reason to be a good father or husband. These priorities distract from THE priority – pursuit of pleasure.

    Others among us – the empire builders, the saviors of our civilization – are sticking with the old-school priority. And if passing on your genes (and not just to a bum, but a successful successor) is your priority, well a healthy relationship with your wife (dominant but loving) and children is paramount to achieving that priority.

    Neither one is right or wrong in and of itself – but if you have different goals, you’ll never agree on methods.

    Like


  358. Maurice,

    Sorry, too late to change now 😦 Pupu does have many favorite cartoon figures. Elmo is too young for Pupu.

    Like


  359. @doug, maurice

    My memory for written words was useful in showing her her inconsistancies. Her inability to understand she’s being inconsistant is tres frustrating. I know we’ll hear from her later, and it should be interesting – one thing for sure she’s never dull. 🙂

    I’m off to a parade, check you later gaters.

    Like


  360. Now, for good or ill, a technologically complex civil society cannot be maintained by an exclusive model of male dominance and female subservience.

    I think that is difficult to demonstrate. America invented and maintained plenty of complex technologies while it was male-dominated. Men, after all, are better at math, science, and engineering than women. If anything, our decline as a technology leader tracks with the erosion of male dominance and the state-mandated introduction of women into science and engineering fields.

    Like


  361. Just a note: The Bible says that divorce is perfectly OKAY in one instance: Adultery. Dreher is wrong when he says he’d hasten to forgive and all that crap. Apparently, he doesn’t read his Bible or understand it.

    Like


  362. on July 1, 2009 at 11:06 am An Experienced Father

    Whiskey said:

    >Without the US involvement, he would have won, and the
    >Axis ruling the world would have been very, very nasty.

    No.

    Buchanon is an idiot here for missing the fact that Germany declared war on America. Not the other way around. It only takes one large, well armed faction, in a nation state to start a war between nation-states.

    You, OTOH, need to go read Adam Tooze book:

    “The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.”

    Tooze makes clear that Germany was doomed from the start since they simply couldn’t produce enough war materials to win the war.

    Even with the addition of France, the Netherlands, Austria, Czech and Belguim they couldn’t compete. They were the world’s fifth largest economy taking on economy’s #1-thru-#4.

    A German chance to “win” would have been a quick kill in Russia.

    The Germans were literally incapable of getting one.

    The Germans had a classic case of an autarkic national economy with Keynsian economic overheat, due to their Government spending programs. It powered it’s war economy on foreign loot. The “economic clock” nearly ran out on the Nazi Germans a number of times.

    The take over of the Rheinland gave Hitler the political and institutional support in Germany to take over Austria.

    The body and foreign exchange finances of Austria made the Czech take over possible.

    The Czech take over’s body and foreign exchange finances made the conquests of Poland and France possible.

    It was all plainly visible at the time.

    Churchill was cast into the political wilderness for saying the politically incorrect, but as transparent as the emperor’s new suit reality, that Germany was rearming for war.

    The German economy going from one percent GDP in 1933 to 30% GDP in 1939, while cutting of non-war related imports, was also plainly visible even to bad intelligence agencies.

    France could have fired a rifle single shot and the German Army would have bugged out of the Rheinland take over.

    The will for even a minor show of force among the Western elites was missing. That is why in the end they lost so much.

    The Germans had to take Czechoslovakia in 1938 the way Japan had to fight in Dec 1941 due to the American oil embargo.

    It was only the loot from Czechoslovakia that powered the German economy through the war with France. Point in fact, a large fraction of the tanks the Germans used to conquer both Poland and France were Czech built vehicles designated PzKpfw 35(t) and Pz 38T tanks by the Germans.

    The 1938 failure of will in the West by British PM Chamberlin is what destroyed the British empire more than anything else.

    The Germans would have beaten the Western allies air forces all hollow in a 1938 fight — they had the ME-109 in numbers and the British had not deployed the Spitfire — then both their German Army and air force would have run out of fuel, and the German economy would have collapsed, as the fighting lasted more than a few weeks.

    The Germans in 1938 were almost completely out of foreign currency reserves to buy fuel from the Rumanians

    Tooze asserts that this was the main reason the Germans went in to Russia – the fact that Hitler had no other option but to do it now or never.

    And don’t forget Hitler’s ideology.

    On p. 666 we have part of a summary by Tooze on one of the reasons why Hitler widened the war in 1941:

    “The astonishing defeat of France in the early summer of 1940 had promised to change everything. But in fact the Wehrmacht’s spectacular victory did not solve Hitler’s fundamental stratgic dilemma. The German navy and air force were too weak to force Britain to the negotiating table. The competitive logic of the arms race continued to apply in 1940 and 1941. Rather than surrender to Hitler’s will, Britain proved willing to go to the point of national bankruptcy before being rescued by lend-lease. And thanks to its comparatively abundant foreign reserves and American assistance it could mobilize a far larger percentage of foreign resources than Germany at this critical point in the war. In Berlin, by contrast, once the euphoria of victory had worn off, a considerable disillusionment set in over the economic viability of Germany’s new Grossraum. Conquering most of Western Europe added a drastic shortage of oil, nagging difficulties in coal supply and a serious shortage of animal feed to Germany’s already severe deficiencies. The populations of Western Europe were a vital asset, as was their industrial capacity, but, given the constraints imposed by the British blockade, it was far from clear that these resources could be effectively mobilized. Unless Germany could secure access to the grain surpluses and oil of the Soviet Union, and organize a sustained increase in coal production, continental Europe was threatened with a prolonged decline in output, producitivity and living standards. Added to which, Roosevelt had launched his own spectacular rearmament program within days of Germany’s breakthrough at Sedan. The strategic pressure on Hitler to pre-empt decisive American intervention in the war can only really be appreciated if we do full justice to the scale of the Anglo-American effore from as early as the summer of 1940. In this respect, the truly vast discrepancy between Anglo-American aircraft procurement and Germany’s relatively insignificant outsourcing to France and the Netherlands is very telling. it was an imbalance that was not lost on Goering and the German Air Ministry.”

    Add to above the fact that the German General Staff’s “strategic planning” for the war in Russia was escapist fantasy.

    The whole reason the Germans broke off the “Battle of Britain” in 1940 was they could not continue it and have the fuel reserves for Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

    The Germans lacked the resources, particularly in terms of fuel, to win the war in Russia in a single campaign. They had to plan a two year campaign as a minimum and fully mobilize the German economy to do it.

    Hitler would have none of that.

    The German economy did not begin mobilizing for WW2 until 1942 due to internal German politics — Hitler did not feel he could call on Germans to sacrifice enough to maintain his power — and German economic growth from 1938-1942 was fueled by loot from conquered nations.

    If you are really interested in the economic history of WW2, also check out these books. I found them on one of the many Amazon.com WW2 listmania book lists:

    The Economics of World War II : Six Great Powers in International Comparison (Studies in Macroeconomic History) by Mark Harrison

    “A comparison of the military economies of the UK, USA, USSR, Germany, Japan and Italy. German reliance on autarky & loot and American lend lease integrating the Allied economies were surprises.”

    The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945 by Walter S. Dunn

    “A pricey but worthwhile book on the Soviet military economy & production. It helps to explain the effect of lend lease on the Soviet war effort and supply system.”

    A War To Be Won: Fighting the Second World War by Williamson Murray

    “Murray and Millett’s tour de force on WW2 draws on their
    earlier MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS books to paint a picture of the war from the level of economics & grand strategy through military operations.”

    Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War by John Ellis

    “John Ellis’ masterful book on Allied economic and military production superiority and their often hamfisted use of it. Out of print but available via Amazon’s book service.”

    Like


  363. @Cliff- so how does that square with the point that women eaily lose respect for, and love for, a man they can easily manipulate and dominate? seems like that’s a pretty common arc of female dissatisfaction in relationships: choose a guy they can mold into whatever they want, and lose all respect for him along the way. the dominance is the missing aspect, and roissy is right that it’s necessary to maintain long-term attraction and respect. whether it’s used for good or ill is another question, and a very important one.

    @S_A – how about the idea that each is appropriate at a different stage in life? Even in traditional/historical sociartties, with arranged marriages etc., young people always found ways to sow their wild oats. as they grow up, they think about their legacy, their place in their society, etc. you could argue that the balance has been tilted too strongly toward the youth/hedonism in recent decades in the decadent west, but you can’t argue that it serves no purpose.

    think of it in evo-psych terms: newly formed adults, with raging hormones and at the peak of their fertility, need to rut as much and as widely as possible to create the next generation. their bodies and motivations push them in the strongest possible terms to those kinds of behaviour. that’s where your hedonism/gene-passing arguments come from – they’re the same thing at that basic level. there’s 100s of thousands of years of ingrained behavior, going back to our primate ancestors, behind this, over which our human civilzation of a few 1000s of years is but a mere veneer. of coruse civilization is what separates us from being animals – and the traditions of which you spoke were pre-birth control, pre-feminism, pre-science, etc. to channel human sexuality and mating in socially acceptable and sustainable ways. which have been significantly weakened in recent deacdes, for reasons discussed here a lot.

    so it’s sort of a personal choice, a kind of moral one, these days. who are you going to be? how are you going to treat members of the opposite sex? what do you want in a mate, in a family, in your future, in your old age? a certain amount of rutting around as a horny young person is normal and acceptable, i’d say, to most people in this day and age. but if you string that behavior too far into adulthood, as many do, you opt out of those structures of civilization that you rightly point out have a lot of value.

    post too long, rambling, and abstract – sorry. additional thoughts welcome.

    Like


  364. on July 1, 2009 at 11:13 am Cliff Arroyo

    “America invented and maintained plenty of complex technologies while it was male-dominated.”

    Define male-dominated.

    One problem is that to keep a technologically advanced civil society (TACS) going you need to make sure that as many people as possible have good educations and when they get education they want a say in running things and eventually you have to give it to them or face more unrest than is convenient for getting anything done.

    There’s no way to keep a TACS going without educating women and no way to keep women as domestic helpmeets if they’re educated unless you want to follow the Saudi model and waste an absurd amount of time and effort in keeping them out of public life.

    And there’s no reasonable way for women to be involved in public life and make sure they’re homebodies who want the man of the house to make all the decisions.

    Like


  365. on July 1, 2009 at 11:24 am Cliff Arroyo

    “how does that square with the point that women eaily lose respect for, and love for, a man they can easily manipulate and dominate? seems like that’s a pretty common arc of female dissatisfaction in relationships”

    I agree, a man who’s too easily molded is no longer an interesting challenge. OTOH a man who can’t be molded to some degree will ultimately cease being a challenge and become a despised burden.

    “the dominance is the missing aspect, and roissy is right that it’s necessary to maintain long-term attraction and respect”

    I’d agree except that he substitutes cheap pick-up tricks for attraction and respect. Only the dumbest most superficial (and boring) women aren’t going to see through that eventually and unless sympathy bonds (or some other basis for staying together or staying faithful) have been formed then it’s hasta la vista.

    Like


  366. @Experience Father,

    Tooze makes clear that Germany was doomed from the start since they simply couldn’t produce enough war materials to win the war.

    Your post is basically right, with the proviso that victory was not totally about production. Germany could theoretically win if she managed to demoralize the Soviets so they lost their will to fight on, perhaps by taking Moscow and Leningrad. Demoralizing the Russians was inherently difficult because it was a Stalinist police state, and of course the Germans made it more difficult for themselves because they made it clear they planned to exterminate and enslave the Russians, so surrender equaled death.

    The Economics of World War II : Six Great Powers in International Comparison (Studies in Macroeconomic History) by Mark Harrison

    However, Harrison has argued that the USSR was close to economic collapse in 1941/42, which may support Whisky’s argument:

    War production was a decisive element of the Soviet war effort. But in 1941 and 1942 its foundations were crumbling. Soviet factories could not operate without metals, machinery, power, and transportation. Their workers needed to be fed and clothed, and competed for the same means of subsistence as the soldiers on the front line and the farmers in the rear. As war production climbed, this civilian infrastructure fell away. While Soviet factories turned out columns of combat–ready vehicles and aircraft, guns and shells, civilians were starving and freezing to death. The tribulations of the other Allied economies, even Britain under submarine blockade and aerial bombardment, seem almost frivolous in comparison. Why the Soviet economy stopped short of outright collapse is therefore a proper and serious question.

    The outcome of the war was decided by production, and production rested on the mobilisation of overall resources into the war effort. But in 1942 the Soviet war effort itself rested on a knife–edge. The war in that year saw a battle of motivations in which a hundred million people made individual choices based on the information and incentives available.

    Like


  367. @ maurice

    Even in traditional/historical sociartties, with arranged marriages etc., young people always found ways to sow their wild oats.

    I don’t think this is a given. You may be right that a healthy adult in TODAYs society sows his oats first and then settles down, but given how young marriage used to be, when was this sowing occuring? Were young men fucking bar sluts from 12 – 16 and then settling down?

    I also don’t think it’s clear that too much of the wild oat sowing can’t cause permanent harm to the empire-builder tendencies (the way a slut can lose the ability to pair-bond). I’m not saying it definitely does cause that harm, but I don’t think it’s obvious that it doesn’t. Using Roissy as an example, he is – at least by his own words – a lost cause as a prop of Western civilization (as he freely admits).

    @ Experienced Father – Fascinating stuff!

    @ Cliff –

    There’s no way to keep a TACS going without educating women

    Why is this obvious? I don’t see any proof of this assertion.

    Like


  368. on July 1, 2009 at 11:33 am Cliff Arroyo

    cptnapalm, i was being descriptive and not saying what I think people should do (which is not whatever it is you’re fantasizing about).

    Like


  369. jaakkeli PC’d:

    The Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war were the kind of land-grabs that make America the world’s laughingstock for claiming special world police rights.

    eh, why not. History beats Herstory.

    hey jaakkoff:

    a landgrab? How do you think those sweet, innocent, gentle-governing Spaniards got Texas and Cuba in the first place.

    Like


  370. Cliff, other than medical professions, there is little to suggest (see my post on the modern state of marriage) that women predominate in productive occupations, that add wealth to the economy instead of provide a net drag (like lawyering for the mst part).

    BLS has breakdowns, women predominate in service, professions, and management. Men in manufacturing/production.

    While I agree there was no way women were going to be “kinder, kuche, kirche,” the cost of modern liberated women is quite high.

    Like


  371. on July 1, 2009 at 11:45 am Cliff Arroyo

    Me: “There’s no way to keep a TACS going without educating women”

    Seeking alpha: “Why is this obvious? I don’t see any proof of this assertion.”

    Me again: I don’t know if it’s obvious and I don’t know if there’s ‘proof’ but the circumstantial evidence is fairly strong. How many TACS are there that don’t educate women? How many societies that don’t educate women are advanced or show any promise of being able to advance? Correlation isn’t causation but the tendency is for more technology to lead to the need to educate more people (who then want input into how things are run). If there are counter-examples I’d like to hear about them.

    How do you think a society that didn’t educate women or expect them to be able to work outside the home could advance?

    Like


  372. jaakkeli PC’d:

    The Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war were the kind of land-grabs that make America the world’s laughingstock for claiming special world police rights.

    Geez, what an idiot. This viewpoint is evidence as to why the rest of the world sucks, if it were actually held by anyone except American and Western European socialists who have their own reasons for hating this country (socialism doesn’t work and our success and Western Europe’s stagnation of the post Thatcher era shove their face in it). Self-hatred is an ugly thing, jaak.

    One Euroweenie, after we attacked Afghanistan and as we were gearing up to invade Iraq said something along the lines of, “so, the message to the rest of the world is that if you attack America, America will unilaterally fight back,” in a way as to make it sound like a bad thing.

    World Police? Please, kill yourself at your leisure, just don’t catch our attention.

    Like


  373. @cliff – the existence of prostitution through all recorded history, in all places, testifies to the persistence of those wild oats. interesting about the weakening pair-bond effect – you seem to be arguing that a spell of youthful promiscuity, in both sexes, weakens the hearth-and-home sort of patriotism, the building of society and respect for its institutions, when they settle into adulthood. i don’t see it at all. it seems to be an argument that these things are caused, in part, by sexual frustration and ignorance. we shoulld be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water where the sexual revolution is concerned.

    to me “empire building” obviously depends more on the non-sexual aspects of a given person’s education, family history, etc.

    Like


  374. sorry, that was supposed to be @S_A.

    Like


  375. How many TACS are there that don’t educate women? How many societies that don’t educate women are advanced or show any promise of being able to advance?

    Well it’s tricky with the data, but you’re being disingenuous. All advanced societies today educate their women and all advanced societies before WW2 didn’t. That would suggest to me that there is no correlation in either direction.

    Like


  376. How do you think a society that didn’t educate women or expect them to be able to work outside the home could advance?

    Um… the way the Western world did for centuries before 1970?

    Like


  377. on July 1, 2009 at 11:54 am Cliff Arroyo

    maurice, I think you’re addressing S_A, he’s the empire builder, I’m more the detached ethnographer trying to make sense of the natives’ behavior.

    Like


  378. you seem to be arguing that a spell of youthful promiscuity, in both sexes, weakens the hearth-and-home sort of patriotism, the building of society and respect for its institutions, when they settle into adulthood

    I was more asking the question than advocating the view. If I had to guess I would say that extreme promiscuity weakens it in both sexes, but the tolerance level for a woman is higher than a man.

    In other words, increasing promiscuity is damaging to hearth-and-home at a gradually increasing rate, but that the slope of this damage is greater for women than men.

    As in all things: moderation.

    But I would be interested to further the discussion on whether or not the sowing of the oats is a relatively recent phenomenon or a millenia-old tradition.

    Like


  379. “cptnapalm, i was being descriptive and not saying what I think people should do (which is not whatever it is you’re fantasizing about).”

    Bah. I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, got into a 45 minute detour on the way to work, read some outright fabrications presented to me as facts and then read your post.

    I fucked up and I apologize for the attack.

    Like


  380. I don’t think it’s so much educating the women as giving them more power.

    In the 19th century, when the Western frontier was being settled, women found themselves gaining more power in the family, mainly because everyone needed to work and contribute, and a lot of input from both adults was needed.

    The divorce rates skyrocketed on the Western frontier.

    Like


  381. I will support Cliff’s thesis from a practical angle. A woman’s productive life lasts 40 years, from age 20-60, or 25-65. The intense childcare years (if we assign her only to this) lasts only 15-20 years. How can she maximize her contribution to society if she doesn’t maximize her potential for those other 20-25 years?

    Like


  382. How many societies that don’t educate women are advanced or show any promise of being able to advance?

    Those countries are not not-advanced because they don’t educate women. Not educating women is at most a symptom, not a cause, of their lack of advancement.

    Another question – OK, we’ve educated a lot of women. How many of them are in technology fields, and how many of them are in liberal-artsy fields that contribute nothing to our technological advancement? And of the ones in technology fields, how many are actually innovating and making discoveries?

    Less than 10% of Japan’s scientists and engineers are female. Do you want to argue that Japan is not creating and maintaining a technologically advanced society?

    Like


  383. for 2. i meant ‘or vice versa’ not ‘and vice versa’

    Like


  384. on July 1, 2009 at 12:05 pm Cliff Arroyo

    “Um… the way the Western world did for centuries before 1970?”

    Education for women began in 1970? Women being able to work outside the home began then?
    Had US women been undeducated and unable to hold jobs outside the home (whether or not they were expected to) they wouldn’t have been able to take up work en masse during WWII freeing up men for soldiering.

    I think the real difference is probably between 1800 and 1900. Without examining the record (which I don’t have the time or inclination to do) I’m betting that the world of 1800 could be maintained indefinitely without giving women (or many men) education while the world of 1900 …. couldn’t.

    Like


  385. @Tarl:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3908362.ece
    She said: “It has been a bit like a time warp. This predatory or condescending culture [towards women] was more common across the workplace 20 to 30 years ago but has somehow survived in an engineering, science and technology context.

    “It is the hidden brain drain. We have this amazing, talented pool of women who have left the industry. It is highly destructive to our society and economy.”

    Hmmm….
    “The report claims the “sexist culture” persists despite concerns about dwindling numbers of female graduates staying the course. The European Commission has predicted that Europe will suffer a shortfall of 20m skilled workers in science and technology by 2030.”

    I don’t know. I found another study a while ago (still searching for the link) in which women in science faced more discrimination from a panel reviewing their resume than men. The panel was less likely to believe that their work is theirs, that it is done by someone else and that they are “stealing it” or just cleaned test tubes in a lab when someone else did it.

    It might be true. Who knows?

    I personally agree with you on liberal arts degrees being worth nothing. I’ve also noticed that people who are obsessed with history/politics/government tend to be assholes. Might also be why a lot of women are coarser nowadays. Just an observation.

    Math/science nerds ftw.

    Like


  386. Seeking_Alpha–

    @ Cliff –There’s no way to keep a TACS going without educating women

    Why is this obvious? I don’t see any proof of this assertion.

    I agree with you.

    To a considerable degree Japan is an example of a TACS that while it does educate women, also still openly discrimates against them in many facets of work. That’s perfectly possible.

    I’m not saying it’s necessarily desirable the way Japan does it and related things. Japan certainly has it’s own rather massive social issues and gender issues.

    I do think we could certainly end affirmative action for women in all of its facets and guises with no negative effects, but rather positive ones, on our competitiveness and so on. Nowhere else (save I guess Sweden and Norway) promote affirmative action for women though as much as America does.

    In fact I think we should resume allowing some degree of soft discrimination against women, or at least what some will and do change amounts to that. Up to a point. Mommy tracks viewed with legal suspicion increasingly now should rather be accepted as the best thing for all in most or many circumstances. I could make good social arguments for affirmative action for men in fact. So perhaps could you.

    Talent shouldn’t be wasted and excellence from everywhere should be rewarded. But we should consider it normal and laudable for most women to prioritize their families over their careers, certainly during infant and child raising years. But not every woman. Single motherhood should be regarded as a stigma, like it used to be.

    Excessive career mindedness in women to the exclusion of family should be regarded in the media as unappealing much of the time instead of the opposite as prevails now. Excessively aggressive women should be called bitches and the different evaluation of the genders in that regard should be openly embraced and celebrated.

    Down with feminism!!

    But not down with women in all parts of all (or almost all) workplaces.

    (Should be damn few female firefighters though. They aren’t strong enough, usually.)

    Like


  387. on July 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm Cliff Arroyo

    cptnapalm, no problem.

    Like


  388. @Cliff Arroyo:

    “think the real difference is probably between 1800 and 1900. Without examining the record (which I don’t have the time or inclination to do) I’m betting that the world of 1800 could be maintained indefinitely without giving women (or many men) education while the world of 1900 …. couldn’t.”

    Giving people education changes everything. I’ve read that China, for example, is facing a situation in which it may have to implement some sort of democracy within the next century, with the rising number of people becoming educated each year.

    I think, ultimately, educating women did lead to this sort of thing. As much as I like to be submissive to, I’d hate having a crazy dictator husband, or being treated like a second-rate human.

    Now, do I like the way things are now? No, not really. But do I want to give up my rights to receive an education? No.

    I don’t think having women give up their educations is the right way to go about it.

    Like


  389. on July 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm Cliff Arroyo

    and I hope your day improves.

    Like


  390. Wow, ladies, way to make me proud of the gender. Awesome job last night!
    Also, for all you men cheering it on and declaiming LR’s attention whoring … well, she’s hardly the only female here doing that, is she? She just happens to be doing it by disagreeing rather than agreeing.

    Roissy/Cliff:
    “your mistake is in assuming that duty = alpha. it does not”
    I couldn’t have said it better, which is why self-proclaimed alphas usually can’t maintain LTRs and are awful fathers. Good spouses and/or parents have to internalize the idea that other people are more than chess pieces to be moved around and disposed of in due time and once they do that they’re ruined as “alphas”.

    Very interesting.
    I wonder what effect that has on the offspring’s views of alphas, especially daughters.

    aliascliro:
    For those who asked me about the phenomenon of women who dump alphas for betas: yes, I have seen this happen, and no, it wasn’t because the married women or their husbands were physically unattractive. I can’t speak for how common it is, just that I’ve seen it happen more often than the beta-for-alpha exchange.

    My personal observations also, assuming we’re controlling for age.

    mandy
    I personally agree with you on liberal arts degrees being worth nothing. I’ve also noticed that people who are obsessed with history/politics/government tend to be assholes. Might also be why a lot of women are coarser nowadays. Just an observation.

    Try to remember that a. you’re 17, b. never even been to college, and c. have admitted to having limited social experience. Get a little humility, at least until you’ve actually lived.

    Like


  391. Mandy! XD

    I’ve also noticed that people who are obsessed with history/politics/government tend to be assholes.

    um. not true. women would be fucking their brains out

    YOU do seem to know an awful lot about skyrocketing divorce rates amongst Western Expansion Pioneers post-Monroe Doctrine

    we gotta get you out of them books 🙂

    Like


  392. “Women tend to think ahead more and choose LTRs more on the basis of who they think they can turn them into. The preferred hunk of marble will have lots of resources to share and have lots of rough surfaces to be polished.”

    @Cliff —

    Probably true in fact, but also probably what leads to many relationship disasters. It’s disastrous to “bet” on who you think you can turn someone into, rather than assessing them based on who they are. I agree that women do this all the time, much to their detriment really.

    Like


  393. The issue isn’t the education of women. It’s good to have women educated and contributing to society.

    The issue is that in order to do this the family has been ivirtually destroyed through the vandalism of family law that has taken place over the last few decades. When you mess with family law, as we have done, such that fatherhood is marginalized to a large degree, what happens is that men stop participating. Men slack off. Men withdraw. Men become less ambitious and so on.

    The main motivators for men have always been children, family and, by derivation, the larger social fabric as an extension of that. When we fucked with the family law to free up women, we also greatly weakened fatherhood (which depends on family to exist properly), which in turn weakens men’s interest in investing in themselves and the broader society.

    While we can speculate about whether a society can progress without educated women (and I think it’s better to have educated women), I don’t there there’s any doubt that a society cannot progress without men who are deeply invested in the success of the society. That investment comes, mostly, from being ensconced in families with their own children — precisely the social model that has been very precisely undermined over the past several decades.

    The result is that men adapt to the new situation, spend less time and effort investing in themselves, almost none investing in the broader society, and progress becomes harder, not easier.

    Like


  394. Mandy —

    I think, ultimately, educating women did lead to this sort of thing. As much as I like to be submissive to, I’d hate having a crazy dictator husband, or being treated like a second-rate human.

    Now, do I like the way things are now? No, not really. But do I want to give up my rights to receive an education? No.

    I don’t think having women give up their educations is the right way to go about it.

    I completely agree with all sides of this, young hotstuff.

    Like


  395. most of the “jobs” women do are made up makework jobs created to administer affirmative action or foster “sociology”, schools and government meddling.

    without affirmative action and insane employment law, there would be no need for big pink human resources departments. without public schools there would be no need for 1000s of “counselors”, administrators , “teachers” etc. without women working there would be little need for daycare workers, without madeup “psychology”, “sociology” and government family interference there would be no need for social workers. therefore, there would go 90% of “jobs” women do

    Like


  396. I will support Cliff’s thesis from a practical angle. A woman’s productive life lasts 40 years, from age 20-60, or 25-65. The intense childcare years (if we assign her only to this) lasts only 15-20 years. How can she maximize her contribution to society if she doesn’t maximize her potential for those other 20-25 years?

    That’s for one kid. While a woman shouldn’t start having kids at 40, if she has her 4th or 5th kid at age 40, age-related birth defects are much less. That could keep her busy from 25 to 65. Then the grandkids start.

    Not saying women must only do child rearing. Just pointing out that the wife of an empire builder could be busy with her duties for her entire life.

    Like


  397. Tarl–

    Another question – OK, we’ve educated a lot of women. How many of them are in technology fields, and how many of them are in liberal-artsy fields that contribute nothing to our technological advancement? And of the ones in technology fields, how many are actually innovating and making discoveries?

    Sometimes I think the only fields women go into are various kinds of bureaucracy at various levels. With lawyers being sort of bureaucratic fight specialists. Also that we’ve expanded the ever ballooning American bureaucracies and legaldoms in large part to accomodate their spilling numbers.

    Now I know that’s way exaggerated. Just sayin’

    Don’t you notice how many FEWER women there are in really, really LINE positions in organizations, as opposed to all manner of staff ones?

    Also how much key invention in any kind of area, not just science and engineering, is really done by women — still? Maybe this is partly the result of mollycoddling women with AA in staff positions?

    Like


  398. Mandy:
    From the article you quoted:
    “Nearly two-thirds of all women surveyed said they had been victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. A similar number objected to the “lab coat culture”, in which researchers laboured over experiments, “tethered to the microscope”, for up to 12 hours a day.”

    Expecting a woman to do the same thing the men do is considered an evil thing to do to women, apparently.

    When did “sexual harassment” go from “He said that I have to sleep with him in order to keep my job” to “I felt like I had to wear a t-shirt and blue jeans to blend in”?

    Like


  399. on July 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm An Experienced Father

    Tarl,

    >Germany could theoretically win if she managed to
    >demoralize the Soviets so they lost their will to fight on,
    >perhaps by taking Moscow and Leningrad.

    This was impossible for the Germans to pull off.

    German infantry divisions (85% of the Army) ran logistically on trains, horses and shoe leather.

    The Russians destroyed their rail system as they retreated.

    The Germans just didn’t have train engineering repair units; rail engines and rolling stock; the truck park; or the fuel to close the distance between the German rail heads and the front to win in one year.

    >Demoralizing the Russians was inherently difficult
    >because it was a Stalinist police state, and of course the
    >Germans made it more difficult for themselves because
    >they made it clear they planned to exterminate and
    >enslave the Russians, so surrender equaled death.

    The Germans were stupid like that.

    Also consider the fact that American Lend Lease was effectively shut off in Dec 1941 through 1942 to arm American Pacific forces at the expense of Russia and Britain.

    America did not really get a “Germany first” military production posture until after Operation Torch in 1943.

    In a situation where America didn’t enter WW2, that lend lease would have been available for both the Russians and British.

    IOW, Russia’s military economy would have been _far_less_likely_to_collapse_in_1942_ as a result.

    Germany’s decision to declare war on the USA when it did was rational, given
    a) it was fighting at all and
    b) the military build up the USA was undertaking at the time.

    That American military build up was what was driving Axis strategic decisions in 1941-42.

    Check out the USN versus IJN carrier totals here, that are based on an alternate reality of the US Navy losing every aircraft carrier it had Midway and the IJN losing none:

    http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

    To quote the summary:

    “In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943.

    All this is not to say that losing the Battle of Midway would not have been a serious blow to American fortunes! For instance, the war would almost certainly have been protracted if the U.S. had been unable to mount some sort of a credible counter-stroke in the Solomons during the latter half of 1942. Without carrier-based air power of some sort there would not have been much hope of doing so, meaning that we would most likely have lost the Solomons. However, the long-term implications are clear: the United States could afford to make good losses that the Japanese simply could not.

    Furthermore, this comparison does not reflect the fact that the United States actually slowed down it’s carrier building program in late 1944, as it became increasingly evident that there was less need for them. Had the U.S. lost at Midway, it seems likely that those additional carriers (3 Midway-class and 6 more Essex-Class CVs, plus the Saipan-class CVLs) would have been brought on line more quickly. In a macro-economic sense, then, the Battle of Midway was really a non-event. There was no need for the U.S. to seek a single, decisive battle which would ‘Doom Japan’ — Japan was doomed by it’s very decision to make war.

    The final evidence of this economic mismatch lies in the development of the Atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project required an enormous commitment on the part of the United States. And as Paul Kennedy states, “…it was the United States alone which at this time had the productive and technological resources not only to wage two large-scale conventional wars but also to invest the scientists, raw materials, and money (about $2 billion) in the development of a new weapon which might or might not work.” In other words, our economy was so dominant that we knew we could afford to fund one of the greatest scientific endeavors in history largely from the ‘leftovers’ of our war effort! Whatever one may think morally or strategically about the usage of nuclear weapons against Japan, it is clear that their very development was a demonstration of unprecedented economic strength.”

    Japan’s decision to attack America when it did was the absolute best thing — short of attacking Russia — it could do to help Germany.

    Japan did not have the fuel to both attack south for the Dutch East Indies oil fields and to attack Russia.

    Point in fact, it did not have the fuel to attack Russia at all, thanks to the American oil embargo and it’s own going war with China.

    Like


  400. Mandy–

    In the 19th century, when the Western frontier was being settled, women found themselves gaining more power in the family, mainly because everyone needed to work and contribute, and a lot of input from both adults was needed.

    The divorce rates skyrocketed on the Western frontier.

    That’s interesting info hotstuff.

    Like


  401. Mandy said:

    I think, ultimately, educating women did lead to this sort of thing. As much as I like to be submissive to, I’d hate having a crazy dictator husband, or being treated like a second-rate human.

    Now, do I like the way things are now? No, not really. But do I want to give up my rights to receive an education? No.

    I don’t think having women give up their educations is the right way to go about it.

    I don’t think anyone would advocate giving up the right to education (well, heh, some here would, but no one sensible would).

    I think we’re advocating social change rather than legal change. A woman used to be shamed if she wasn’t a wife and mother by a certain age. At some point, it reached the opposite extreme where, in some places, a woman was actually shamed for choosing career over being a wife and mother.

    It is this trend that needed reversing and in some sense this is already happening. I think that if you asked a statistically significant sample of female high school graduates a question along the lines of ‘would you be happy being a homemaker’ (or something else, better worded), the % ‘yes’ would have increased over the past 20 years.

    Like


  402. “and I hope your day improves”

    Magic 8-ball is saying “Not likely”

    Like


  403. And I think everyone deserves a round of applause for the civility to which today’s discussion has risen. No TJF/Emme/LR trolls and no lurker/etc. insult-heavy nonsense comments.

    Like


  404. @tazzy- in the immortal words of the great Billy Crystal: “Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.”

    @all re female edcuation/employment- well, for generations prior to 1970, there were pretty solid traditional career paths for women: nursing, teaching, secretarial. All those workplace cultures were based on traditionally feminie values: nurturing, instructing, supporting, etc. the bullshit jobs dana referred to are extensions of those into our current PC environment. so @anony, that’s what women traditionally did and do for teh remainder of their productive lives.

    i don’t think we shoud roll back the clock and de-facto confine women to these roles. but the idea of workplace/professional culture and values is real. engineering, law to some extent, finance, corporate america – all bascially male-value oriented. academia mixed but trending strongly female.

    the problem is mixing those workplace cultures, whose individual autonomous cultures exist for reasons pertaining *directly* to the kind of work/function being carried out. and feminist AA/legal constraints on traditionally male workplaces has the effect of weakening them, their social/business functions, and morale.

    none of this is intended as predictive power over whether an individual female would make a good engineer, lawyer, whatever, or fit into a given workplace. it’s the attempt to change male-oriented workplaces into female-friendly ones: less competitive, more concerned with feelings/esteem, elevating the weak, etc.

    Like


  405. “No TJF/Emme/LR trolls and no lurker/etc. insult-heavy nonsense comments.”

    I did, but I retracted it.

    Like


  406. Nah, that wasn’t so bad. It’s a blog run by Roissy. A little anger/sarcasm/whatever is gonna happen. But when someone demonstrates the 12 uses of cuntrag because is female…

    Like


  407. An Experienced Father–

    A German chance to “win” would have been a quick kill in Russia.

    The Germans were literally incapable of getting one.

    Well, they were incapable once America started really stepping up it’s funnelling of War Materiel to the Germans.

    If Churchill hadn’t existed, I mean that one man, AND if the Germans had managed to do some deal with the Japanese to keep them from attacking America, THEN they might won the war.

    They might have done it with either a Russian kill, or a standoff that allowed them to nab and keep Poland, the rest of Eastern Europe save Russia, and the Ukraine. The early push on Moscow was a mistake. They should have focused on the Ukraine and an early take of the Baku / Caspian oil fields, and an earlier assault on and knock out of Stalingrad. Defending that would have been plenty. The Ukranians were much more winable to the German side than Russians, and many were. Smarter treatment of them would have made a big diff too.

    Like


  408. Seeking Alpha

    But when someone demonstrates the 12 uses of cuntrag because is female…

    I agree. Lurker was completely out of control with that.

    I wish I’d been around when that was going on.

    I LIKE Mandy. She’s a fun and interesting addition around here. Smart cookie.

    Like


  409. I think the solution comes in labor law changes for part time workers. Many many women desire quality part time work. My understanding of labor law and benefits constrains employers to hiring full time workers preferentially.

    Like


  410. speaking of bullshit AA jobs, what about the $300K community outreach coordinators?

    Like


  411. Cptnapalm-

    When did “sexual harassment” go from “He said that I have to sleep with him in order to keep my job” to “I felt like I had to wear a t-shirt and blue jeans to blend in”?

    From the moment the feminists began drafting their legislation in the wake of the media blitz over the Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas national female hysteria weeks over sexual harassment. Hysteria is not too strong a word.

    The media lied about the legislation, flat out lied with hardly any demurs, from the get go.

    And we were taught there’s no censorship in this country. PC works remarkably well at doing it by other means.

    Like


  412. @ S_A
    “That’s for one kid”

    No, that’s for three kids.

    Like


  413. on July 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm An Experienced Father

    Tarl,

    From the Harrison article you quoted:

    >The role of Lend–Lease
    >
    >The first instalment of wartime Allied aid that reached the
    >Soviet Union in 1942 was small, amounting to some 5 per
    >cent of Soviet GNP in that year (table 1). Although Allied
    >said was used directly to supply the armed forces with
    >both durable goods and consumables, indirectly it
    >probably released resources to households. By improving
    >the balance of overall resources it brought about a
    >ceteris paribus improvement in the payoff to patriotic
    >citizens. In other words, Lend–Lease was stabilising. We
    >cannot measure the distance of the Soviet economy from
    >the point of collapse in 1942, but it can hardly be doubted
    >that collapse was near. Without Lend–Lease it would
    >have been nearer.

    The majority of American military production in 1942 went to fight Japan and to prepare the Operation Torch American invasion force.

    America not in WW2 per Buchanon would have meant that equipment in the hands of the Russians and British.

    Like


  414. Any discussion of alternative outcomes for the 2nd WW always need to take account of the A. Bomb. Unless the US screwed that up. the Axis was going to lose unconditionally.

    Like


  415. on July 1, 2009 at 1:04 pm Cliff Arroyo

    “I don’t there there’s any doubt that a society cannot progress without men who are deeply invested in the success of the society. That investment comes, mostly, from being ensconced in families with their own children — precisely the social model that has been very precisely undermined over the past several decades.

    The result is that men adapt to the new situation, spend less time and effort investing in themselves, almost none investing in the broader society, and progress becomes harder, not easier.”

    I actually agree. The problem is how to get there from here. Just turning the social clock back 50 years isn’t gonna work. Even if it could be done, the problems that led to the current situation won’t have been addressed and in a few decades we’ll be right back where we started from.

    Like


  416. mandy —

    She said: “It has been a bit like a time warp. This predatory or condescending culture [towards women] was more common across the workplace 20 to 30 years ago but has somehow survived in an engineering, science and technology context.

    “It is the hidden brain drain. We have this amazing, talented pool of women who have left the industry. It is highly destructive to our society and economy.”

    My proposal for how to deal with those postulated “brain drain” issues in the sciences and engineering is to bring back the “predatory or condescending culture [towards women that] was more common across the workplace 20 to 30 years ago.” That way there won’t be the differential. So female brains won’t for that reason drain in one direction.

    Note that that is her characterization of the prevailing workplace culture towards women 30 years ago, not mine, nor I put to you, one that’s at all accurate. What’s happened in the intervening period in much of the office work environment towards which she says female brains drain, is that those enivonments have been made mollycoddling towards women and hostile, or bristling with danger and constraint left and right towards natural male jocularity, and so on.

    Like


  417. Experienced FAther–

    war material to the Soviets, obviously.

    Like


  418. on July 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Mandy!:

    China will only have to do what the CCP wants to do—this is the bunch that doesn’t mind slaughtering a bunch of its citizens, whether by the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or Tienanmen Square. Increasing demands for popular participation in the government will be met with something on the order of, “What’s that? Couldn’t hear you for the sound of all the safeties on these automatic weapons being taken off.”

    Any threat to the current standard of power that the CCP enjoys will be met with military force, especially if it’s just replaceable subjects doing the threatening.

    Also, in response to another remark:

    I don’t concur with your off-hand assessment of people who’re interested in government, history and politics. I do, however, concur with Firepower; I like all three, and as of yet, I’m not having to fend off the endless waves of nines and tens desperate to hear my viewpoints on the Cold War, the proper role of the Article III judiciary in our republic or why McCain/Palin could have won it all.

    Like


  419. [email protected]
    “..it’s my understanding (I think it was agnostic who posted a very good piece over at gnxp a long time ago) that much of is.lam’s control of women stems from their relative polygamy in society..”

    Chuck, I disagree with you here. Greatly. My disagreement not only stems from my knowledge of the regions and religion but also from my personally having known practicing polygamists from a few different cultures.

    Most Mus.lim societies have very low rates of polygamy. There are exceptions, chiefly three. West Africa – which typically has high rates, East Africa, and the Arabian Gulf states (Saudi, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen) – there polygamy is not at all uncommon, though it grows less common than in the past.

    In some of these cases the men are basically at the mercy of their wives, who are able to network, form coalitions, and force issues while collectively exercising the “what lies betwixt the legs” vote at will. So there goes the “control” argument out the window.

    Take any guy who had the experience of dating, in serious LTRs, 3 girls at one time would realize the subtle power dynamics that exist. Time expended, energy sapped… drama.

    Now Amplify this by 100 when dealing with actual matrimony. I’m most familiar with Nigeria, and I know the sort of influence Nigerian wives can weigh on their husbands.

    In any case, West Africa and the Gulf Arab world are minorities. Arabs are racial and ethnic minorities in the Musl.im world, whose vast majority tends towards monogamy with rare polygamy. Monogamy is a defacto rule in most urban cultures, and mandated by law in some countries. In areas where it was common two centuries ago it’s a rarity today, practiced only in rural tribal areas. Morocco for example, in Berber land, in the Atlas or Rif Mountains, you may come across an occasionally goat farmer with two wives (and get to know him long enough and you will discover who are the bosses in the house) but even there, monogamy is common, polygamy is uncommon.

    In India and Pakistan monogamy is the rule for cities, and educated middle class and elites. Polygamy may occur, but it’s uncommon. In rural areas one may find more polygamy but even there it’s limited. A rice farmer in the Punjab with two wives or something. Nothing approaching the western stereotype of a large harem.

    This was less the case in the 19th century, but even back then polygamy was a matter of resources. Wealthy men were polygamous, middle class men were at times, the poor were not they usually had one wife. Wealthy men, or men of high social status may have had 4 wives plus a concubine. Middle class men, middling merchant types or professionals, may have had 2 wives, the poor usually had one.

    The Qur.an, Hadith traditions, and ” Fiqh” mandates that husbands treat wives more or less equally. Failure to do this could and did lead to social stigma, and loosing face with one’s wife’s family.

    This was serious in traditional societies where your public status and standing as a man was often a matter of constant negotiations of your public face. If you married the daughter of a prominent family, and short changed her over another wife, she would complain to her people, they would politely bring the issue up, if the mistreatment (or perceived mistreatment) continued this could become a serious issue. Your public reputation could suffer, you might end up assaulted by her brothers.

    A man was required to provide equal maintenance, food, clothing, and in some societies you were even obliged to provide servants for his wives, equally. If you married a high class, high status woman, you were obliged to provide her food, clothing, living quarters, and servants equal to the norm in her class. This was mandated in some cultures by force of law and practice. YOU paid a dowry to her family, YOU got in good with her in-laws.

    She could sue or demand a legal divorce if you short-changed her. She could certainly also stir up trouble with her family and clan. wives were obliged to equal social and conjugal time from their husbands. Again in some cultures he even had to provide separate residences for them. These are historical facts, I am not making this up.

    Now, obviously, having to provide bloody separate houses and servants, as well as obeying your bint’s clothing, furniture and food whims, as the exclusive provider of the household, would tend to limit polygamy for only the most capable of men, is it not so?

    Note also that the actual degree of “control” Mus.lim men, then and now, have had over their women may be exaggerated, both by Mus.lims, and their enemies. And the “one sided” nature of this control may be vastly overstated by individuals whose only knowledge of Isla.m tends to be from a few small tertiary sources and observations.

    Things vary from culture to culture, Pakistani and Afghani men are traditionally rather hard fisted, I’ve heard of Afghani men just walking around slapping their wives upside the head randomly to keep them in line. Pathan men are notoriously patriarchal and harsh .
    Bhetti however also mentioned aspects of her family’s gulf experiences, which are a bit different. In the Maldives women somewhat famously know how to use their speech to keep their men in line, and Toureg men are often notoriously kept in line by their own women.

    I know countless Egyptian men who are often hen pecked to death. It is nuanced and far more complex than you imagine. Isla.m is a 1400 year old religion practiced by every race, on Europe, Asia, and Africa alike, and Mus.lim cultures have taken on multitudes of forms.

    Also if anything Isla.m, in some ways, weighs the female end of the scale heavier than traditional Christianity does. Women were obliged to certain things by force of law that they were not in the West. Popular ill informed stereotypes notwithstanding, you must understand the role of extended family in such cultures, a wife’s family has some role over your relationship. there is a constant balance of keeping the in-laws happy. This circumscribes abuses of male power.

    Basically it’s more complex than you probably realize.

    Jump to today; here, in the USA and England.
    South Asian American Mu.slim immigrants and their children tend to be somewhat “beta” when it comes to their wives and their wives.. wagging tongues. White American Muslim converts tend to either play according to NPR-type liberal professional marriage norms (most white converts come from these classes) or if they are working class, they play out conservative small town church norms, Black American converts are similar, they tend to play out conservative church norms of marriage. Polygamy is almost non existent among White Muslim converts, and it is very rare among Blacks.

    I know very well one practicing Mus.lim polygamist in the USA, but he’s Moorish Berber. A very good friend I’ve known for a decade. Saying he has “control” over his wives might be a bit of a stretch. He spends a good deal of his time just sweet talking and smoothing feathers, constantly. His literal words were “I advise Polygamy for idiot men who don’t know what they are getting into.”

    His words not mine.

    I know a Black American expat doing consulting over in Bahrain. He ended up marrying a Saudi girl, a South Asian girl, and an American expat girl. His three wives sort of rule him and simply keeping the peace requires a constant degree of negotiation, flattery, smoothing talking, and generous shopping trips. He is wealthy. Which helps.

    Rather than just guess, it would be good for people to consult multiple sources and get a better idea as to what is actually going on… Seriously, there are a few million floating around in the USA, why not simply ask a few about the dynamics of their cultures? Mu.slims are as different from each other depending on the cultures they hail from

    Like


  420. on July 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm An Experienced Father

    Tarl,

    >Germany could theoretically win if she managed to
    >demoralize the Soviets so they lost their will to fight on,
    >perhaps by taking Moscow and Leningrad.

    No.

    The German Army lacked the logistics to knock Russia out in one campaign year.

    For example, the German infantry division transport consisted of trains, horses and shoe leather.

    They made up 85% of the German Army.

    The Germans did not have the rail engineering units to rapidly rebuild Russian train gages to the narrower German standard, nor did they have the additional rail engines and rolling stock to fill in the space between the German border and the front lines if they did.

    The Russians destroyed their rail system behind them and took their trains and rolling stock into the interior of Russia.

    The German truck part for invading Russia was made mostly made up of captured French, British, Austrian, Czech, Dutch & Polish trucks. None of whom had spare parts that were interchangable with the other. None of whom were designed for Russian roads or countryside.

    The German infantry had to walk into Russia and they had to raid the country side for grain and hay to feed the horses pulling their artillery. And themselves, come to that.

    Like


  421. aoefe–

    Setting the record straight

    Roissy said :”aoefe and others have eventually caught on to your lies and gutter morality”

    Honestly I saw it day 1 of her comments, there was no eventually about it.

    I know you did. I remember.

    I saw it real early on too. It’s always been her extreme selfishness, and smug single mother forever though I wouldn’t have to be -ness (which I pointedly attacked her on from moment one) which have bothered me most.

    But yes, I saw her duplicity and shifting versions of her truth really early on, and repeately thereafter, too.

    Like


  422. Any threat to the current standard of power that the CCP enjoys will be met with military force, especially if it’s just replaceable subjects doing the threatening.

    I don’t think that’s true at all. Maybe you see repression from the CCP being trendless over the last forty years, but I think it’s clear that their is a trend towards less and less violence.

    One little anecdote was when several years ago a polluting chemical plant was going up in one of the larger second-tier cities and the residents protested it. The government scrapped the project rather than killing all the protesters. Now, it’s very likely that the leaders of the protest were thrown in jail, and that’s hardly the model of liberal government behavior, but it’s a far cry from the past.

    In the above example, and re: Tienanmen, it depends on what is being protested. Getting rid of single-party rule is still a taboo subject, but almost anything else isn’t. There are plenty of articles in state-sanctioned or even state-run newspapers discussing the merits of democracy. They’re all allowed so long as they discuss the merits of democracy WITHIN single-party rule and avoid any direct criticism of the government.

    Again, this is not to say they’re a model of liberal government. Rather I want to dispel this bogeyman myth of the evil Chinese government because it harms our national security decision-making process.

    Like


  423. “I actually agree. The problem is how to get there from here. Just turning the social clock back 50 years isn’t gonna work. Even if it could be done, the problems that led to the current situation won’t have been addressed and in a few decades we’ll be right back where we started from.”

    @Cliff —

    I think that monogamy has to come back as a norm. If that happened (and we made the legal changes to support that), we can stop the drain of men away from investing in themselves and society in socially useful ways. If we don’t do that, I don’t see how we get men interested in getting back in the game.

    Like


  424. Novaseeker–

    While we can speculate about whether a society can progress without educated women (and I think it’s better to have educated women), I don’t there there’s any doubt that a society cannot progress without men who are deeply invested in the success of the society. That investment comes, mostly, from being ensconced in families with their own children — precisely the social model that has been very precisely undermined over the past several decades.

    The result is that men adapt to the new situation, spend less time and effort investing in themselves, almost none investing in the broader society, and progress becomes harder, not easier.

    Way to focus laser like on the key disturbing issue. Well done!!!

    I keep saying that what really worries me is higher betas, and to a lesser degree betas, not being able to get laid. So many of our most productive males have been higher betas.

    If they start mass deserting working their way up in the professions and business and sciences and technology, or there’s a significant fall off from that, so that the field from which the really inventive etc. can emerge is significantly diminished — big trouble.

    Is female affirmative action worth that?

    Is even the vote for women worth that, if reversing the vote really is key to this whole female power thing and progressive feminist supports takeover of the levers of our society, as Roissy has several times opined. Even Mandy seems to lead some credence to that view. I wonder what her opinion is on that specifically?

    Like


  425. on July 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Seeking_Alpha:

    I think we agree on basic facts, and I agree with you on the “trend”. Perhaps it is useful to divide between the Mao era and the post-Mao era for terms of repression. The difference might be that Mao had a centralization of power that the Politburo will not allow in the post-1976 era. We’re pretty sure that Mao didn’t mind slaughter; he also could get away with it. Whether the generation that came after him (once Chou et al died off) objected to such or could get away with it are two different questions, neither of which I have the answer for.

    I don’t claim expertise in Chinese politics—far from it—so bear that in mind. However, I’m most curious as to whether they’re running a version of the so-called “Tarkin Doctrine”, ruling through the threat/fear of force rather than force itself. (Set aside for a minute that CCP rule benefits tremendously from what appears to be a rising standard of living on the part of the Chinese people in general.)

    We could argue whether democracy in a single party rule system is actually democracy, but that’s a stalemate best fought elsewhere. I do, however, remember that some criticism of the system was permissible in the Soviet system; you could always hit Comrade Ivanov for corruption and failing the Soviet people, but never the system that put corrupt Comrade Ivanov in place.

    They’re probably aware of the Soviet model and what led to the dissolution of the USSR; the operative question would be whether they have ignored it, think they’re better at maintaining rule than the Soviets, or if they’re merely keeping their powder dry. My guess is they’re perfectly comfortable letting a thousand flowers bloom until such time as the weeds hit and then they’ll go for the herbicide.

    Given my politics, I’ll puckishly point out that anyone who opposes our legitimate national objectives is ipso facto evil. I don’t bother assigning “evil” to their government in reality because the adjectives “strategic competitor and potential threat” are far more fitting.

    Like


  426. on July 1, 2009 at 1:47 pm Cliff Arroyo

    “Even” me? I’m a meritocracy kind of guy.

    I kind of believe in helping competent people who’d have a hard time getting their foot in the door a hand up. But once they’re there it’s sink or swim and it shouldn’t be a long term neccesity.

    Like


  427. Given my politics, I’ll puckishly point out that anyone who opposes our legitimate national objectives is ipso facto evil. I don’t bother assigning “evil” to their government in reality because the adjectives “strategic competitor and potential threat” are far more fitting.

    Well yes, that’s true. Hopefully you italicize potential as much as I do. I don’t see how our interests and there’s diverge all that much and hopefully we can manage a peaceful rise of China.

    Like


  428. on July 1, 2009 at 1:50 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Oh, and an on-topic observation:

    I can write several paragraphs about Chinese politics but I have yet to figure out how to translate any of that capability into considerable success where the primary subject of this website is concerned.

    Curses!

    Like


  429. @doug,
    I favor SES-based AA through higher education. Gender and race-based AA generate more harm than benefits.

    Like


  430. I can write several paragraphs about Chinese politics but I have yet to figure out how to translate any of that capability into considerable success where the primary subject of this website is concerned.

    Mao got girls like whoa. Use your knowledge of Chinese politics to engineer a revolution and set yourself up as dictator. The girls will flock.

    Like


  431. on July 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Seeking_Alpha:

    The only problem with that, if we take his doctor’s diaries as accurate, is that they were teenagers and under. That ain’t what I’m after, although Dr. Kissinger is right, power is an aphrodisiac.

    Perhaps I’ll engineer A.J. Travis’ revolution or something.

    Like


  432. Cliff Aroyo–

    Novaseeker: “The result is that men adapt to the new situation, spend less time and effort investing in themselves, almost none investing in the broader society, and progress becomes harder, not easier.”

    I actually agree. The problem is how to get there from here. Just turning the social clock back 50 years isn’t gonna work. Even if it could be done, the problems that led to the current situation won’t have been addressed and in a few decades we’ll be right back where we started from.

    I think this idea that the change in gender roles and the devaluation of most men, not just loser men, and the widespread deferral to women and women’s interests way over men’s, is automatic or unavoidable, or even really not much modifiable, in a high tech and affluent society is simply wrong. Look at Japan. (Now consider what Japan would be like without the US and rest of Anglosphere example.) Consider France and Germany compared to here, and then again run the same, now imagine without the Angloshere influence thought exercise.

    It’s the ideology of feminism, and it’s huge embrace by American media and educational institutions that’s the driving force.

    What’s the crysalized kernel, the core driving more force behind that.

    The pernicious concept of gender equality. Which really means sameness. Or really means always favor women. But it works operatively by shaming and going to almost any lengths to social engineer away any cases where women are at an “unequal” disadvantage or simply perform lower, and then tilt whatever scales and playing fields can be tilted to change that — without caring when women make up 60% of law students now as one result. (Start by expelling boys who pull girls pigtails twice, end up with that lawyer stat.)

    It’s taken me a long time to get here, to swallow and say no fudging, just say it.

    I don’t believe men and women are equal or should be. Down with gender equality. Stop supporting it men. Oppose it.

    Men are naturally dominant and leading over women, and should be. Men are naturally leading, and exert more power over people, and women, than the reverse. And should. This should be encouraged, not rooted out.

    Sure they’re about equally intelligent. When most work is brain work to a fair degree, women can do most work more or less as well as men. Except for more subtle issues such as drive for leadership, and needing to do well at work to be attractive to the other sex, which is VASTLY more the case for men, than women. Instead of trying to reverse or override these differences we should accomodate them.

    Now having said I don’t believe men and women are equal (in leadership, dominance, and power) I do believe they are equally valuable to society and in human dignity. As well, many women will exceed most men on any given trait and so on. Overlapping bell curves.

    Stop supporting gender equality as a laudable, or undeniable, moral goal. (But with your caveats). Instead oppose it.

    Make a bold statement of rebellion first. THEN qualify it. Instead of the other way around.

    Did any of you notice that when I did that with emme it toook the wind right out of her sails in arguing me. Her response to me was basically: “Doug: will kudos. At least you’re honest.”

    If we don’t support thier agenda of gender equality or equity, the fairness discussion or debate shifts greatly.

    Fairness IS important. Equality in all respects is not. An overall balance of fair treatment for both genders is.

    Like


  433. anony —

    I favor SES-based AA through higher education. Gender and race-based AA generate more harm than benefits.

    If I had to choose between what we have now and your proposal I go with yours. (Though I’m more interested in ending AA for women than for blacks. If we allowed it only for the descendants of slaves, with a phase out in another 20 years, I’d be ok with that. Not theoretically pure perhaps but a huge improvement.)

    Though why AA for lower SES? Outreach, yes. There really is a tendency in our fairly meritocratic society for better genes and micro family culture to rise and worse to sink. How much gold is there really down there that does pan out? You aren’t a blank slate believer, are you?

    Like


  434. on July 1, 2009 at 2:32 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””””””’Tarl,
    I don’t agree that the only model for an alpha is someone who is a narcissistic manipulator who doesn’t care about the people he’s manipulating. Is this really what it was like for thousands of years before recent decades, when the average man was a lot more alpha than he is now? I doubt it. I think the model back then was the man was dominant, but exercised his dominance and made the decisions in the best interest of his wife and children. He loved them, he wanted the best for them, and he made the decisions accordingly. The idea that a dominant male must be an “awful” husband and father merely because he is dominant is simply untenable and reflects the pernicious influence of feminist propaganda.”””””””””””””

    That was beautiful man.

    Like


  435. on July 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm Man with no name

    The Decline of Western Civilzation

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55T0UX20090630?rpc=64

    Like


  436. @LR

    Personally it would have shown more class had you not responded to me at all.

    Maxim #1 Femininity – Show restraint

    Like


  437. @doug

    “I saw it real early on too.”

    It’s a gift we have. 🙂

    Like


  438. There should be NO affirmative action for women.

    I don’t think there should be for any races either at this point.

    But for women, to have AA is absurd. They are half the population, for crying out loud.

    Plus women do NOT earn less than men in America. That is a feminist myth. It is false.

    Women earn less than alpha men, but more than Beta men. Feminists, being the most dishonest and hypocritical group alive today, compare women to alpha men only.

    Like


  439. Geez, what an idiot. This viewpoint is evidence as to why the rest of the world sucks, if it were actually held by anyone except American and Western European socialists who have their own reasons for hating this country (socialism doesn’t work and our success and Western Europe’s stagnation of the post Thatcher era shove their face in it). Self-hatred is an ugly thing, jaak.

    That’s of course true. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Mexican-American war was pretty much pure land grab and certainly not a necessary “pre-emptive war” with the Grand Moral Justification of stopping the immediate rise of Mexican Hitler.

    One Euroweenie, after we attacked Afghanistan and as we were gearing up to invade Iraq

    For the record, my opinion on this is that Afghanistan was clearly justified (if anything, the response was too weak) and that Iraq was a phenomenally stupid move.

    said something along the lines of, “so, the message to the rest of the world is that if you attack America, America will unilaterally fight back,” in a way as to make it sound like a bad thing.

    It wouldn’t be, however, that’s not exactly what happened. What actually happened was that America was attacked and then immediately started talking about non-judgmentalism and tolerance. Hell, I imagine that the phrase “the religion of peace” was popularized by Bush himself.

    You really can’t have it both ways. You can be a power that does as it pleases or you can be a do-gooder world police with a clean enough record to back your lectures. To be a hybrid of both only means that you’re a giant with an Achilles’ heel. Worst of all, America is so dominant that most of the world learns the language and history and we all have the easy ability to play your own useful idiots, so not only are you a giant with a fatal weakness, you’re a giant with a fatal weakness known to everyone.

    Notice how, for example, there is no real Vladimir Putin hate club. That’s not because he’s less “imperialist”, “racist” or “warmongering” than George Bush, it’s because he never displays any sign that he personally considers those true vices.

    Unfortunately, Americans are easily baited into insisting that whatever America does simply must be some part of a grand moral mission even when everyone can see that it’s plain theft and thuggery.

    Like


  440. on July 1, 2009 at 2:56 pm HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO

    Heir, holy fucking shit that’s unreal. He can have virtually anyone he wants and I honestly don’t think he’s remotely conscious of it.

    Like


  441. I think AA is detrimental to women when it’s legislated in fact it becomes job ceilings for women, preventing us from potentially obtaining jobs once the quota is filled. To give us this preferentialî treatment on the basis only of our sex, is unfair, and is reverse discrimination against qualified males as well as minority groups such as ethnics and native people.

    Men, I believe, now occupy the vast majority of high-paying positions. This is not necessarily evidence of sexual discrimination. It may well be a reflection of the fact that women, until recent years, either have not been trained for, or have not participated on any large scale in the job market. Today women are changing career goals, working more on a full-time basis, and entering educational and post-graduate programmes to gain new skills. More and more, we are working in occupations that have been traditionally held by males.

    With the number of women in the workforce rapidly increasing, the number of women appointed to high paying, supervisory and executive positions is increasing. We are already protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex by Human Rights Codes. Increasingly, more qualified women, if they so choose, will attain better positions.

    Appointments should be made on the basis of merit, that is qualifications and endeavours and not on the basis of gender. In fact appointments should be made on the basis of the best qualified person for the position, regardless of their gender.

    In Canada we have the Employment Equity Act, not AA and its purpose is to:

    •identify and eliminate barriers in an organization’s employment procedures and policies;
    •put into place positive policies and practices to ensure the effects of systemic barriers are eliminated; and
    •ensure appropriate representation of “designated group” members throughout their workforce.

    The goals of the act are:

    •eliminate employment barriers for the four designated groups identified as: women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal people, members of visible minorities;
    •remedy past discrimination in employment opportunities and prevent future barriers;
    •improve access and distribution throughout all occupations and at all levels for members of the four designated groups;
    •foster a climate of equity in the organization.

    The only employers who have to follow the Act are:

    •All federally regulated employers with 100 or more employees, including organizations in industries such as banking, communications, and international and interprovincial transportation. In 2000, there were approximately 394 such employers (private-sector employers and Crown corporations), representing approximately 612,344 employees.

    •All federal departments, representing approximately 155,360 employees. Other parts of the public service, including the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may be specified by order of the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, as being required to comply with the EE Act.

    It’s reported:
    Every year by June 1, over 400 employers submit employment equity reports showing the representation of the designated groups within their workforce. The Employer Reports and Analysis Unit receives these reports and verifies them for compliance with the reporting requirements.

    This Act is not widely known in Canada (only 400+ companies need follow it). I’ve never worked for a company which needed to follow it (yay!).

    Like


  442. on July 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””””””Aoefe,
    With the number of women in the workforce rapidly increasing, the number of women appointed to high paying, supervisory and executive positions is increasing. We are already protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex by Human Rights Codes. Increasingly, more qualified women, if they so choose, will attain better positions.””””””””

    What is your skill set for operations and have you ever came up with one new way of doing things?

    ie. A new report that is now used because it is better then the one that was previously used.

    Like


  443. Kamal — Most Muslims are indeed polygamous. Educated urbanized elites in Pakistan and India might be monogamous, but most of the Muslim world is poor, only recently urbanized (recent internal migrants) or rural, and of course famously second/third generation Muslims in the West are polygamous.

    Muslim polygamy requires harem-keeping and mate guarding, requiring lots of resources to suppress any female activity outside the burqua and harem. This is why Muslim women are generally superstitious, uneducated, poor mothers, and a net drain on society.

    The pattern of Western Women from 900 AD to say, 1965, was free movement outside the home, relatively little mate guarding, social norms/pressure and the requirement to depend on a beta provider to guard against female hypergamy and beta male pressure on other men to discourage mate-stealing. A flatter, more non-hierarchical setting than tribal polygamous Muslim society.

    The heart of Western Advantage and Muslim disadvantage has been polygamy.
    ——————–
    As for WWII, it was a close run thing. HAD Yamamoto conducted follow-on attacks in Hawaii, he could have destroyed the Pacific Fleet’s fuel dump, occupied Hawaii, and used it as a staging area to raid the West Coast, seriously disrupting US industrial production particularly of Aircraft and West Coast shipyards. Japan in that case could have seized Australia, as a clear victory in the Coral Sea or Midway battles would have given them. Midway would have allowed a Japanese island-hopping campaign through the Aleutians down the West Coast, hitting Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland, perhaps even occupying the ports. America’s production potential mattered little if most of it was under attack as was the case for the USSR during June 1941 – Feb 1943.

    The US/British nearly lost the battle of the Atlantic. Only horrific losses, often right off-shore in front of US Eastern and Gulf Coast seaboard ports caused a rethink of Admiral King’s idiot solution to send un-armed and unescorted convoys Eastward to Britain or Russia. Even then, it took new planes with longer range and downward looking radar, more sophisticated sonar, the Ultra breaking of German naval codes, and good luck to barely win.

    America’s productive capacity did no good if most of the ships and material ended up on the bottom of the sea — and merchant seamen do not grow on trees, losses started to affect the ability to deliver war material to Britain and the USSR.

    Moreover, there was considerable Pro-Nazi sentiment. During the Hitler-Stalin pact, the DAR gave Woody Guthrie an award for his album urging Americans to stay out of “Mr. Roosevelt’s war for the Jews.” The German-American Bund was very active, protesting Timely Comics use of Captain America to punch out Hitler in 1940 (Stan Lee remembers sneaking through their goon lines). Father Coughlin, Irish Catholic priest and noted anti-British, anti-Semite (like Buchanon) railed against Britain and for Hitler even after the declaration of War upon the US by Adolf Hitler. Women’s pacifist movements protested any war material sent to the UK, and demanded we stay out of the conflict all together. Eamon de Valera, Irish Free State PM and noted pro-Nazi agitator, turned Ireland into a giant Nazi spy nest and used his influence among the East Coast Irish to gin up support for Hitler, something most Irish (I’m part Irish, I’ve heard story after story on this from my family) of the time being deeply anti-Semitic, were more than happy to oblige, aside from anti-British sentiment.

    Moreover, Hitler had if he just left his engineers alone, war winning Jet Fighters and Bombers. The ME 262, various Heinkels, the Arados and Junkers including stealth, and long-range “New York” bombers were far superior to anything either the UK or US had. The ME 262 would have negated Allied Air Superiority and decimated the Normandy, North African, Sicilian, and Italian landings. All of which depended on air superiority over the landing sites and beyond.

    Hitler, very nearly won. He very nearly starved the UK out of the war through the Wolf Packs. Only nearly everything breaking right for the Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic during 1942-43. The US no less than Germany was fighting a two-front war, and Japanese success in landing troops in either Hawaii or Mainland Alaska would have forced a focus on Japan giving Hitler breathing room. Japan meanwhile had it’s own Atomic program, far more advanced than the Nazi program, and it’s own Jet Fighter and Bomber program. Stalin was a poor general, most of his people hated him, and only gratuitous Nazi brutality got Russians, Ukraines, and other Slavs to fight against the Germans. Had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad for the Caucuses, and knocked out Russian oil production, he probably would have won the War. Knocking out Stalin decisively, gaining oil fields too far away to be bombed, and able to turn once again to the West, staging an amphibious landing in the UK with ME 262 air superiority.

    It was, according to Ike and all the others who fought it, a close run thing.

    Like


  444. on July 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm Gunslingergregi

    From what I have seeen of woman at work they usually get into a position where they have one lane. That is all they will do everything that is outside that lane is not their job. Males are usually expected to fill in all the other lanes. Now when you become a real boss everything and all lanes are your responsibility. Everything. Not one lane not two lanes but a hundred lanes and you have to know about them all. Plus at the top you are easily replaced and abused time wise while you are there. Plus if you do not have connections you are also out. So yea not conductive to the work ethic that I have seen from females. Now you can have a female boss as long as you put people under them that also understand all the lanes and don’t hold the female responsible for the same as a male.

    Like


  445. on July 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””””””””””’Hitler, very nearly won. He very nearly starved the UK out of the war through the Wolf Packs. Only nearly everything breaking right for the Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic during 1942-43. The US no less than Germany was fighting a two-front war, and Japanese success in landing troops in either Hawaii or Mainland Alaska would have forced a focus on Japan giving Hitler breathing room. Japan meanwhile had it’s own Atomic program, far more advanced than the Nazi program, and it’s own Jet Fighter and Bomber program. Stalin was a poor general, most of his people hated him, and only gratuitous Nazi brutality got Russians, Ukraines, and other Slavs to fight against the Germans. Had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad for the Caucuses, and knocked out Russian oil production, he probably would have won the War. Knocking out Stalin decisively, gaining oil fields too far away to be bombed, and able to turn once again to the West, staging an amphibious landing in the UK with ME 262 air superiority.

    It was, according to Ike and all the others who fought it, a close run thing.””””””””””””””””””””””””

    Why China will have the capaility unlike the germans to do a worldwide blitzcreeg. Develope capability of making light cheap plastic planes like the one that went around the world one tank gas 10000 a day. Then add one bomb to each one. We know where all the airports are on google. US has what 1800 fighter planes. Worldwide maybe 8000 fighter planes something like that. Fighters can last about what 8 hours on tank of fuel. So yea wave one destroys all communitcations at airports worldwide. Wave two detroys majority of fighter planes not in the air with anti air missles but on the ground when they run out of gas. Sure your going to loose the planes but who gives a fuck china won’t because on day 3 you have another 10000 planes going up that can reach anywhere in the world. Wave three takes out every gas storage tank in the world except for the ones china has alread sent a human wave to go and take posession of. These can either be remote controlled or best bet for a lot of missions is going to be hardware just like in the old atari preprogrammed suicide missions that can’t be stopped. No loss of trained chineese pilots. No loss of human capital at this point. Send wave after wave of human capital at wherever because it doesn’t matter just getting rid of some betas allow them to be heroes. Planes start taking out all tanks and personnel carriers, artillary pieces figure worldwide total 30000 pieces probably generous. Put up satellites after to designate kill areas for the planes that are now not being lost as their is no longer opposition. Wave of planes with hardwired destinations for every major waterway with poison to drop into the water supply. Hardwired bombs to drop on every power station and water purifying plant. Mop up crew is the mounted remote controlled units that take on what is left of the worlds defense which is going to be people with rifles lol no big problem at all.

    This is only after they develope perfected anti-missle capability of course.

    Like


  446. Guns – I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. You can’t send a tiny plane across the Pacific. It has to have enough fuel to make it. How much do you think a bomb weighs? A bomb big enough to take out an airport? And if the plane is big enough to carry a bomb across the pacific, it’s big enough to be shot down.

    As for This is only after they develope perfected anti-missle capability of course.… we’ll have perfected this before they have, which means we’ll shoot down all these toy planes you’re talking about and upon which the rest of your thing relies.

    Okay, I’m going with it has to be a joke.

    Like


  447. on July 1, 2009 at 4:16 pm Gunslingergregi

    Naaa not a joke a plane has already been made to do that. Bullets run out barrels melt missles run out. How much do you have in stock. Ok you shoot down how many out of the first 10k planes. Then how many out of 2nd 10k. Then 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 10k. Not taking out whole airport but to take out the terminal doesn’t require much. To take out sitting planes doesn’t require much. How many of the wave of nuked that is sent actually make it out of the silo after sitting there for 20 years. Say 30 submarines fitted with medium range nukes how many work. The army is never ready for a blitkreeg. The attacker always has the edge. When you bust in a room on someone even if they have their weapon trained on the door. You if trained will more than likely be able to kill them if your intent was to do so from beginning as you knew the exact time you where busting in they didn’t. They are becoming complacent you busting in are not and already have all your objectives lined out in your mind with adrenaline flowing.

    Dam see what happens when you don’t have sex for 16 days.

    Like


  448. @LR

    “Canada also has a law where if a company wants to fire you, they have to take YOU to court and WIN.”

    That is pure BS. I have hired and fired many people. Within the first three months you don’t even have to provide a reason in order to terminate. After the three months are up you have to pay severence of one week’s pay if they’ve been there less than one year and two weeks if over one year when you terminate. You don’t have to give a reason. It’s always a good idea to have paperwork (i.e. written supervion) but not necessary.

    Like


  449. Guns – The last thing I would call our military is complacent. More importantly though, you could hang bombs on those planes without making them much bigger.

    Did you really say ‘bullets run out’? Do you have any idea just how many bullets our military has?

    Like


  450. on July 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm Gunslingergregi

    So yea the first wave of fighter will go up. Long range bombers will go up. They just won’t be able to land because then they are fucked. No need to take them out of the air. Unless they are able to hit china then if they have perfected anti missle defense then they will also be able to take out bombers. So they only have to take out a conventional force number which is not that high which is what modern armies more than likely look at concievably taking out.

    Like


  451. That is pure BS. I have hired and fired many people. Within the first three months you don’t even have to provide a reason in order to terminate. After the three months are up you have to pay severence of one week’s pay if they’ve been there less than one year and two weeks if over one year when you terminate. You don’t have to give a reason. It’s always a good idea to have paperwork (i.e. written supervion) but not necessary.

    Ouch. Well I guess that makes LR 0-2 on Canadian commentary.

    Like


  452. on July 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm Gunslingergregi

    How many anti air sites do you think their are in us. How many anti air missiles do you think could be thrown up in a given day at maximum rate of fire even at beyond maximum rate of fire.

    Like


  453. on July 1, 2009 at 4:27 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””””””’Guns – The last thing I would call our military is complacent.””””””””

    Not complacent maybe not ready for future war but how could you be not sure.

    Like


  454. How many anti air sites do you think their are in us. How many anti air missiles do you think could be thrown up in a given day at maximum rate of fire even at beyond maximum rate of fire.

    If I had to guess I’d say that every single military airport is prepared to defend itself against foreign attack. I don’t know why.

    Something tells me though that I’m arguing with a drunk guy who’s just having fun. Let’s put off this conversation until China has ‘perfected’ missile defense.

    Like


  455. on July 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm Gunslingergregi

    Maybe yea it is getting there we shall see.

    Never drunk when I post here.

    Like


  456. on July 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm Gunslingergregi

    When you get older the numbers on things get smaller.

    When your a kid the army is infinite.

    But there are pulished numbers on things it isn’t anywhere near infinite but the manufacturing capability is there to produce near infinite numbers with a determined enemy.

    Like


  457. @Gunslingergregi

    “what is your skill set for operations and have you ever came up with one new way of doing things? i.e. A new report that is now used because it is better then the one that was previously used”

    I’m highly organized and love to stir many pots. My primary functions are getting the right people on the bus, improving efficiencies and fostering strength based collaboration.

    As to new ways of doing things – hell ya. Personally the simpler things are to run the more efficient, so not terribly big on hoop jumping bureaucratic processes. I have redesigned many forms or simply created processes from scratch. Simple is as simple does is my motto (actually just made that up, but I might use it later! 🙂 )

    Our firm is modest in size – only 35 staff, 7 of which are managers. I have hand picked the best management team I’ve ever worked with. I have a talent for picking out energetic, committed, positive, skilled people. As Jim Collins says in his book Good to Great “leaders of companies that go from good to great start not with “where” but with “who.” They start by getting the right people on the bus, …” That’s my best skill.

    Like


  458. I should also point out that the above business convo does not come out of my lips during dates…a sure buzz kill for sexiness.

    Like


  459. Heads up: Do not believe Whiskey’s facts are facts

    The following is a classical Whiskeyism. It’s just made up out of whole cloth. It’s what he’s “heard”. Or thinks he’s heard. Or thinks he probably should have heard because it “must be right”.

    Whiskey @Kamal — Most Muslims are indeed polygamous. Educated urbanized elites in Pakistan and India might be monogamous, but most of the Muslim world is poor, only recently urbanized (recent internal migrants) or rural, and of course famously second/third generation Muslims in the West are polygamous.

    Not true. Not close to true. Not remotely close to true.

    Polygamy for Muslims, in practice and law, differs greatly throughout the Islamic world, where polygamous marriages constitute only 1–3% of all marriages.[1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_in_Islam

    Instead what is true is that in the great majority of societies where Islam is followed by the majority of the population, polygamy is ALLOWED under both state and religious law, and is often practiced by the richest men in those countries. Not the same thing as what Whiskey said at all.

    This is what it’s like all the time with Whiskey “facts”.

    He does have his insights. But he also just makes stuff up. A lot. A whole lot.

    Like


  460. ’Hitler, very nearly won

    not only that, but he keeps reappering time and again. He appeared in iran 1979, iraq in 1990, then moved to serbia, to rwanda, to serbia again, then back to iraq and now to iran again

    he is so evil that he refuses to die. so he must be fought at any cost, at any time, whenever he appears again.

    Like


  461. on July 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm Gunslingergregi

    Allright Aoefe you can join my team he he he

    j/k not actually ready.

    Sounds cool interesting.

    Like


  462. @gunslingergregi

    “So yea not conductive to the work ethic that I have seen from females. Now you can have a female boss as long as you put people under them that also understand all the lanes and don’t hold the female responsible for the same as a male.”

    I can’t speak for other females but I am responsible for the whole shebang and if it blows up, there only one place to look. I would admit in many ways I’m not the typical female however. Girly girl and the boss…ooooh the dichotomy, delicious. 😉

    The work ethic thing…I work too hard by most people’s standards. That ethic was taught to me by my dad. That said he wasn’t for girls in guy’s work – he refused my participation in cadets (I wanted to play the drum) because he said men don’t treat women well in guy endeavours. My dad was pure, natural alpha male, a very good role model for me.

    Like


  463. on July 1, 2009 at 4:55 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea seeking I think I will try to work some more numbers into the manifesto. Maybe an overall plan of attack on all major airports. Numbers of military units worldwide. Number of reservoirs. Get my doctoral thesis skills going he he he

    Like


  464. @gunslingergregi

    “j/k not actually ready.”

    Ok, let me know when. 🙂

    Like


  465. aoefe–

    I should also point out that the above business convo does not come out of my lips during dates…a sure buzz kill for sexiness.

    It wouldn’t bother me at all.

    Or it wouldn’t once you’d revealed certain things about yourself and I realized they were for real. I.e. that you’re drawn to naturally dominant men and want to be the overall follower, but a high contributing follower, in a relationship. And especially once I felt you responding to those things in me.

    THEN your saying such things to me would attract me to you even more. This one’s a live one I’d be thinking. Oh, damn, now she’s some worthwhile conquest. I mean if she really does stay so sweet and feminine with me as well. Then damnnnn. Might be worth keep her around even.

    You are going to need a pretty dominant man though continue feeling up to the role with you, even though you would I think try to make it easier for him. Divorced in all probability.

    Like


  466. on July 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm Gunslingergregi

    Allright Aoefe,

    Jesus H Christ I am an Asshole.

    Like


  467. He does have his insights. But he also just makes stuff up. A lot. A whole lot.

    Lol. So true.

    Like


  468. @doug

    “It wouldn’t bother me at all.”

    I have no doubt about that, but you’re not everyman now are you?

    I had a whirlwind dating cycle last week – 6 men, 5 days. At times it’s somewhat ‘out of body’ watching my own demeanor with the different types of men. Men who talk too much and have no social skills will challenge my polite nature. One date last week I caught myself drumming my fingers on my thigh, I stopped as soon as I recognized the gesture. My final date of the six was by far the best. He directed the conversation, told fantastically interesting stories, would ask me questions in appropriate places, seemed interested enough in what I did, but his job surpasses mine so he a) wasn’t intimidated and b) wasn’t overly impressed. I know he found me as delightful as I found him. He is in fact divorced and 17 years my senior, he has had in the past a year long relationship with a woman who was 25 years younger, this means he’s not all gushy that I’m interested. He’s a potential keeper.

    Like


  469. @gunglingergregi

    “Jesus H Christ I am an Asshole.”

    But I’m betting money you’re a cute one! 😉

    Like


  470. aoefe

    I know he found me as delightful as I found him. He is in fact divorced and 17 years my senior, he has had in the past a year long relationship with a woman who was 25 years younger, this means he’s not all gushy that I’m interested. He’s a potential keeper.

    Great! (You sure it wasn’t me?) 😉

    Is his energy level high enough?

    Like


  471. @doug

    “Great! (You sure it wasn’t me?)”

    I wish Doug Draper! 😉

    Like


  472. on July 1, 2009 at 5:38 pm Gunslingergregi

    lol

    Like


  473. on July 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm An Experienced Father

    >As for WWII, it was a close run thing.

    Nope. It was over but for the fighting once the American economy mobilized for war.

    >HAD Yamamoto conducted follow-on attacks in Hawaii, he
    >could have destroyed the Pacific Fleet’s fuel dump,
    >occupied Hawaii, and used it as a staging area to raid the
    >West Coast, seriously disrupting US industrial production
    >particularly of Aircraft and West Coast shipyards.

    With what fuel?

    With what freighters?

    With what fleet of tankers?

    The Japanese merchant marine was fully tasked with the transport of the Malayan, Phillipines and Dutch East Indies invasion fleets for the first six months of the war.

    Point in fact, the Japanese lacked the tankers to move the fuel they captured from the Dutch East Indies oil fields for the first two years of the war. The IJN wound up basing a significant fraction of its capital ships in and around Singapore through 1944 to keep them close to their fuel source and reduce the transportation hit on their tanker fleet.

    There was no possibility of Yamamoto ocuppying Hawaii after Midway. Our garrison was far too big and Hawaii was far too away from Japanese home waters.

    The fall back position for American strategy after a loss at Midway was to do a long range siege of Midway by aircraft and submarine to gut the Japanese merchant fleet and burn the IJN’s reserves of oil.

    The Hawaiian Islands were to be garrisoned by Marine fighters and dive bombers while the Army Air Force flew P40 & P-38 escorted B-17 raids on Midway.

    The only thing that would have changed is the “theater of attrition” between Japan and America’s Air and naval forces — the Midway-Hawaiian Island Theater rather than the Solomon’s — it would not have changed the final result.

    >Japan in that case could have seized Australia, as a clear
    >victory in the Coral Sea or Midway battles would have
    >given them.

    The Japanese _might_ have invaded Northern Australia, *if* they had taken Port Morsby.

    There were no pre-WW2 Japanese plans to invade Australia See:

    http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/asfaras/

    Coral Sea, Kokoda and Milne Bay May-September 1942

    “The Japanese had no plans to invade Australia during the Second World War but they did plan to cut Australia’s supply line with America by establishing bases in the south-west Pacific islands. In early May 1942, an American carrier force intercepted a Japanese carrier force in the Coral Sea and, after a fierce aerial battle – the Battle of the Coral Sea – the Japanese turned back. At the same time, hundreds of kilometres to the north, HMA Ships Hobart and Australia were part of a task force sent to intercept a Japanese invasion fleet heading for Port Moresby. This force was attacked by enemy aircraft but, as a result of the American action in the Coral Sea, the invasion fleet also turned back. These actions were the first major setbacks to the Japanese during their advance south in the Pacific Ocean area. One month later, after a further naval defeat in the Battle of Midway, they abandoned their plans to capture Fiji, Samoa and the New Hebrides.”

    This is important because the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy were never has a successful joint operation in WW2 past the ones they planned before the war.

    >The US/British nearly lost the battle of the Atlantic. Only
    >horrific losses, often right off-shore in front of US Eastern
    >and Gulf Coast seaboard ports caused a rethink of
    >Admiral King’s idiot solution to send un-armed and
    >unescorted convoys Eastward to Britain or Russia.

    I’ll agree with you that Adm King was an idiot.

    King insisted that our coastal shipping not use convoys and ignore every other hard learned British convoy lesson learned because he hated the British.

    I’ll also add that the American and British bomber general’s insistance on strategic bombing in 1942 meant there were not enough long range ASW planes until 1943.

    Once production rates of the B-24 got high enough, that problem, and the wolf packs, ended.

    >Hitler, very nearly won. He very nearly starved the UK out
    >of the war through the Wolf Packs. Only nearly everything
    >breaking right for the Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic
    >during 1942-43.

    The Germans came closer to starving Britain in 1917 than 1942-43.

    The source for that fact was Churchill, who was First Lord of the Admiralty in WW1 and PM in WW2.

    >Moreover, there was considerable Pro-Nazi sentiment.
    >During the Hitler-Stalin pact, the DAR gave Woody Guthrie
    >an award for his album urging Americans to stay out
    >of “Mr. Roosevelt’s war for the Jews.” The German-
    >American Bund was very active, protesting Timely Comics
    >use of Captain America to punch out Hitler in 1940 (Stan
    >Lee remembers sneaking through their goon lines).

    British intelligence and the FBI had that penetrated six ways to Sunday.

    This was thanks in large part to the fact the British broke the German Geheimschreiber strategic code as well as Enigma.

    Geheimschreiber was described as follows in Paul Gannon book, “Colossus: Bletchley Park’s greatest secret” by Atlantic Books, London, 2006:

    “But the Germans had a much, much more sophisticated system, a network of scrambled teleprinters (‘teletypes’ in US English) that could be linked either by land line or, most impressively, by directional radio. The machines were called a Geheimschreibers, meaning ‘secret writers’. The operator typed in the plain or fed it in by punched tape, the machine converted the text into a digital binary stream, enciphered that data not once but twice (using two sets of wheels, each similar to Enigma’s but trickier), then fired the doubly enciphered digital stream at high
    speed down the radio link to a destination machine which, when everything worked properly, flawlessly received every one and zero, automatically stripped out the two cipher keys and printed the plain.”

    The British Colossus computer built to crack the German Geheimschreiber strategic communication system by the UK’s WW2 Bletchley Park code breakers.

    It was built prior to the American ENIAC and appears to have used American MAGIC decripts of Japanese diplomatic traffic carrying German documents also transmitted by Geheimschreiber to crack the latter.

    >Moreover, Hitler had if he just left his engineers alone,
    >war winning Jet Fighters and Bombers. The ME 262,
    >various Heinkels, the Arados and Junkers including
    >stealth, and long-range “New York” bombers were far
    >superior to anything either the UK or US had. The ME 262
    >would have negated Allied Air Superiority and decimated
    >the Normandy, North African, Sicilian, and Italian landings.
    >All of which depended on air superiority over the landing
    >sites and beyond.

    Again, with what fuel?

    It takes 150-200 hours of flight training to make a competent fighter pilot with WW2 flight technology.

    The Germans did not have the fuel in 1942-43 to both run a large scale offensive air campaign and run the panzer army’s on the eastern front at the same time. Just where was it going to get the fuel for fielding five hundred plus ME 262 with effective jet fighter pilots?

    There is also the fact that German lacked the strategic materials — thaks to allied command of the high seas — to make reliable turbo-jet engine to train those pilots, even if they had the fuel.

    See this from wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

    “The BMW 003 jet engines, which were proving unreliable, were replaced by the newly available Junkers Jumo 004. Test flights continued over the next year, but the engines continued to be unreliable. Airframe modifications were complete by 1942, but hampered by the lack of engines, serial production did not begin until 1944. This delay in engine availability was in part due to the shortage of strategic materials, especially metals and alloys able to handle the extreme temperatures produced by the jet engine. Even when the engines were completed, they had an expected operational lifetime of approximately 50 continuous flight hours; in fact, most 004s lasted just 12 hours, even with adequate maintenance. A pilot familiar with the Me 262 and its engines could expect approximately 20-25 hours of life from the 004s. Changing a 004 engine was intended to require three hours, but this typically took eight to nine due to poorly made parts and inadequate training of ground crews.”

    >Had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad for the Caucuses, and
    >knocked out Russian oil production, he probably would
    >have won the War. Knocking out Stalin decisively, gaining
    >oil fields too far away to be bombed, and able to turn
    >once again to the West, staging an amphibious landing in
    >the UK with ME 262 air superiority.

    This is called the “You must believe six impossible things before breakfast” alternate history.

    Where were the Germans going to get this imaginary amphibious landing fleet to go with the imaginary ME 262 air force and the imaginary fuel to power them?

    The closest the Germans could have come to knocking out Caucus oil was to commit the Luftwaffe bomber forces to an air campaign against the Caucuses oil fields during the larger Stalingrad campaign.

    At that time the Germans lacked the fuel and logistics to build up a large enough bomber force to make any difference.

    The actual fact is the Germans were far more vulnerable to air attack by the Allies.

    Pre-War American planning indicated that ball bearing and oil were the key items to go after. That failed miserably in the first case and only won in the second case because of attacking oil forced the Luftwaffe to come up and fight outnumbered against American P-51s.

    No one in the US Army Air Corp did any research into German electrical or water supply replacement times.

    (The British did some on the latter but none on the former. Hence the Ruhr dam busting mission.)

    US electrical infrastructure had just transitioned over to electrical power grids with every power plant able to send electricity to everyone else. What research the USAAF did on electrical infrastructure was based upon that model.

    Post war target bomb damage assesment revealed the real story.

    Yet another serious American intelligence failure…

    Like


  474. Whiskey

    The strategic plan of both Germany and Japan in the 2nd WW was “If we hit them hard enough they will crumple.” They both depended on a collapse of will in their opponents in order to prevail because they lacked the resources to force the issue via brute force.
    Yamamoto never dreamed of occupying Hawaii. Attacking a land airbase with sinkable carriers was already on the outer edge of recklessness according to then current doctrine. The Japanese goal at PH was mainly to achieve psychological dominance.
    Japan never got to first base in regard to nuclear weapons. They had no access to enough uranium nor the industrial capacity to enrich it.
    The battle of the Atlantic was certainly worrisome for the allies but all they needed to win it was radar and enough patrol ships and aircraft. This kept the U boats underwater when near the convoys and underwater they were slower than the convoys. That did not change until the atomic power era.
    The ME262 failed because the engineers failed to develop the jet engines quickly enough. Blaming interference from the top (insisting it could carry bombs) was just asscovering. And again, success for the Germans would have depended on the Brits and Americans shrinking from higher losses in the air. But they had already endured years of meat grinder losses in the air. Besides, it takes skiiled pilots to fly jets and they had no time to train them.
    All German planning for success in attacking Russia depended on Russia giving up. Because regardless of the counter-factual scenarios one invokes, winning a war always requires the other side finally cooperating with their own subjugation. If the Russians were willing to accept a 10 to 1 loss ratio (which they were) Russia was much too large and populous for the Germany of 1941 to have controlled for the reasons skillfully pointed out by the Dad Guy.

    Like


  475. “I sense your good intentions but I wonder if you are not confusing the way you want women to be (quality, etc.) with the way they are on the ground?”

    First, quality denotes being the way I prefer. I’m talking about truly qualifying a woman, not pretending to qualify her.

    That said, most women have some mix (in varying degrees) of wanting some level of dominance and wanting to be the most special.

    “Women signal their ultimate, honest approval of a guy by spreading their labia for him. Everything else is noise. Do you disagree with this?”

    That varies by the woman. From our male point of view, it signals the ultimate approval. Some women don’t know or really understand this. Some women don’t want to know or really understand this because it’s inconvenient for them. Other women do understand that having sex with a guy does signal ultimate approval.

    “If you do not disagree, then the question, “For what SORT of man do women spread their labia” becomes extremely relevant. ”

    Again, many women are directly turned on by the thought of being most special.

    Even a lot of the PUA stuff is about emotionally deceiving women into thinking they’re special to you. Once you get beyond the “establish alpha cred” stage, it goes into the whole “fake pair bonding” routine.

    I have no objection to the body language/up-front flirtation stuff, but beyond that, the PUA stuff gets douchy and deceptive. It is about creating these “pair bonding” feelings in her, even though you have no intention of actual pair bonding. Discussion of that part is very light on this blog, because the “act like a pussy to get into hers” routine undermines the whole “I’m so alpha” shtick.

    The worst thing I could say about the low-quality women who go for this stuff is that they confuse their feelings of being pair-bonded with a rational assessment of the guy’s behavior. But then PUA is exactly designed to create that dissonance.

    So even the PUA method validates my point about woman wanting to feel special.

    Like


  476. Keith said:

    Quality women are defined by their preference for being highly valued over finding “alpha sperm.” That’s why quality women choose men who make quality mates in every way. Quality women inherently appreciate being valued, and will choose a quality male who values them over a more dominant PUA “wanna-be alpha” who doesn’t. In fact, being treated as precious is exactly what makes a quality woman’s giney most tingly.

    What makes a quality woman is being able to control her base impulses. That-does-it-more-for-me-than-that is totally useless. Because then you are at the mercy of a “Bad Tuesday”.

    Basically, the idea that ‘this’ will do it more than ‘that’ twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundrend and sixty five days a year is a joke.

    Impulse control often is ‘quality’. In fact, in very many situations where you would say that is a ‘quality’ woman you can often substitute ‘impulse control’.

    And yes, I am aware there are other aspects to a quality woman.

    Like


  477. Fairness IS important. Equality in all respects is not.

    Fairness means that there are still losers. Equality (of results) guarantees winners, and deep down inside, we all want to be upper middle class white men, not inferior females of any race or non-white and pathetic and lacking.

    Re: Aoefe

    Aww, you’re Canadian. I like Canadians. One of them stole my virginity. 🙂

    Like


  478. It’s Rod Dreher. He’s made betatude such an ingrained part of his persona that he proudly waxes philosophical about it.

    Either of the other two guys could conceivably wake up one day and say “fuck this” (though neither probably will). No way Dreher could.

    Like


  479. on July 1, 2009 at 7:32 pm Virginia Gentleman

    Rum:

    Had the Type XXI U-boat been deployed, we would have had an absolute nightmare on our hands, since it had considerable underwater speed and endurance. You correctly note that forcing the U-boats down was a key thing, but I think our active measures of hunting and killing them were more effective; the Battle of the Atlantic was essentially over by mid-1943, if I remember right. Airborne and at-sea direction finding gear probably count as very effective weapons, moreso than radar in some instances. The sense I get is that there were several times that the Germans very nearly won the Atlantic campaign, at least where interrupting the SLOCs to the British Isles are concerned.

    With regards to the Me 262, more of them with more time and more fuel would probably have been enough to suspend the daylight campaign. I’ve forgotten the numbers, but apparently it didn’t take much in the category of repeat losses over time to essentially run Eighth Air Force out of B-17 and B-24 crews. At least, that was the impression given in someone’s history of the strategic bombing campaign. The percentage was ridiculously low, too. That the engines weren’t that great could be overcome had there been more time to either develop better ones or simply keep maintenance up on the existing ones.

    The Soviets wouldn’t have given up until they were either out of troops to send or the CPSU had been decapitated through several ranks of leadership to the point that nobody was capable of commanding. Like you point out, the Soviet leadership didn’t care about their casualties, so the German strategy should probably have been one of counter-revolution as opposed to annihilation of the Slavic peoples.

    Like


  480. @al:

    “Try to remember that a. you’re 17, b. never even been to college, and c. have admitted to having limited social experience. Get a little humility, at least until you’ve actually lived.”

    I needed that. :/

    I apologize to anyone who my post may have offended.

    I HAVE had negative social experiences though, and people planning to be politicians, lawyers, etc. and enter special college programs to fasttrack college and law school and their careers are usually very argumentative and unagreeable people.

    Furthermore, “knowledge snobs” (people who boast about their knowledge of a particular field, whether they actually are as knowledgeable as they claim or not) can be found in almost any field, and are generally found disagreeable to all, unless you are interested in that field and therefore want a mentor.

    As it is, I shouldn’t have said that liberal arts degrees have no worth, because we do need people that interpret human behavior (psychologists), or evaluate the path that society is taking (sociologists and people who are employed in fields involving human geography) and people who organize the way things are done in society (politicians).

    And, as research is rapidly occuring, and the technocological capabilities of humans are rapidly increasing, our morals and ethics are not up to date with current times. Perhaps part of the problem with family law, although I’m thinking more about cyber crimes, etc.

    As for women increasingly becoming lawyers- for a short while I was considering becoming a lawyer. I was told by people that (depending on the type of law I study obviously) I could become independent because of that I could easily balance between family and work. This may be true in some cases, but definitely not all. Though, I do have a cousin that started her own law firm and got married by the age of 25. From what I’ve heard, she’s the exception, not the rule.

    Like


  481. on July 1, 2009 at 8:25 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””’Rum,
    Besides, it takes skiiled pilots to fly jets and they had no time to train them.”””””””

    This is why if the shit is remote control and you build 10k of them with 10k pilots. You have some serious shit going on and the pilots just keep getting better instead of dead.

    Like


  482. on July 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm Gunslingergregi

    Plus you get to do the suicide missions without the suicide part. Your pilot just keeps going and going like the energizer bunny. Plus you can give incentives like they all get nice comfortable houses where they can also keep there families or if single can choose from a mixed array or woman.

    Like


  483. Cliff: There’s no way to keep a TACS going without educating women

    Someone Else: Why is this obvious? I don’t see any proof of this assertion.

    ******

    All right. I don’t know how the arguments about the education of women in TACS (technologically advanced civil societies) developed in the end, but based on what I’ve seen so far I must step in and agree with Cliff.

    The western world’s technological/scientific advancement began at around the same time that women of the western world began to be educated – that is, in around the 17th century, which was when levels of female literacy began to rise in the west and approach that of men. Note that I don’t mean higher education here, but learning to read and do basic arithmetic.

    First, you’re wrong that women did no “productive” work in the Industrial Revolution. Until labour laws making it easier for women to stay home with their children were passed in England, in the later 19th century, women as well as men worked in coal mines and factories; they also did so in Canada, the US, and continental Europe. It’s possible that without their labour, the economic transformation brought about by the Industrial Revolution would have been slower.

    However, even if you persist on believing that women contributed, and contribute, nothing to the economy, or to the more advanced forms of knowledge and their use in the economy, the fact that women were able to step in and instruct children in the basics of reading and arithmetic, both within the home and in village schools, was very important to the development of western society.

    Women’s literacy and their ability to pass it on to their children or other people’s children (as school mistresses) freed educated men from having to carry out this chore; made it possible for poor men (farmers, industrial workers) to acquire enough education to be able to read books about farming and machinery and so forth; and thus enormously helped the spread of knowledge to a much broader portion of society than would otherwise have been able to acquire any. Thus women’s literacy and basic numeracy helped to accelerate the pace of western development far beyond what would have been possible without it.

    In addition, western women’s ability to read also made it possible to spread basic information about health care, as such information became more widely available and reliable in the later nineteenth century.

    A society that persists in denying women at least a basic education is one that will almost certainly slow down its economic and social development.

    Like


  484. @Cliff

    Education for women began in 1970? Women being able to work outside the home began then?
    Had US women been undeducated and unable to hold jobs outside the home (whether or not they were expected to) they wouldn’t have been able to take up work en masse during WWII freeing up men for soldiering.

    I picked 1970 because that’s about when women started entering the workforce in large numbers.

    In WW2, women in the workforce was understood as an emergency special case, not that it would be the norm. In fact, it did not require a great deal of education to train women to work on the production line (that’s why a lot of blacks got hired, too). Basically it was a matter of training, not education as such.

    @An Experienced Father

    This was impossible for the Germans to pull off. German infantry divisions (85% of the Army) ran logistically on trains, horses and shoe leather.

    Stolfi makes a plausible case that it was possible in Hitler’s Panzer’s East.

    The Germans just didn’t have train engineering repair units; rail engines and rolling stock; the truck park; or the fuel to close the distance between the German rail heads and the front to win in one year.

    They planned and executed the campaign poorly, that’s why they lost. This doesn’t mean it was impossible for them to win under any circumstances. Just really, really hard!

    American Lend Lease was effectively shut off in Dec 1941 through 1942 to arm American Pacific forces at the expense of Russia and Britain.

    Nah. The US delivered 2.4 million tons of LL to Russia in 1942, probably about as much as we could given the available shipping. If you look at the Global Logistics and Strategy volume of the US Army in WW2 series, it says we met our Lend-Lease commitments in 1942. We signed an agreement in October 1941 of what we would deliver; deliveries fell behind after Pearl Harbor; but, by August 1942 they had caught up.

    In a situation where America didn’t enter WW2, that lend lease would have been available for both the Russians and British.

    The issue is getting it there. It is not clear to me that we would have gotten “more stuff” to the Russians if we hadn’t entered the war, given the constraints on shipping plus the problems at the Soviet end (e.g. limited port capacity and inability to turn ships around quickly; limited railroads from the Persian Gulf to the USSR; limitations of the Trans-Siberian RR).

    Japan’s decision to attack America when it did was the absolute best thing — short of attacking Russia — it could do to help Germany.

    Japan did not have the fuel to both attack south for the Dutch East Indies oil fields and to attack Russia.

    Take a look at Waldo Heinrich’s Threshold of War. He shows that the Japanese decision not to attack Russia was driven by actions the US took that diverted Japanese attention (e.g. the oil embargo and reinforcement of the Philippines) – and that the US took these actions with the deliberate intent of distracting the Japanese from an attack on Russia, which FDR thought they were going to do based on intercepted diplomatic exchanges between Germany and Japan.

    The majority of American military production in 1942 went to fight Japan and to prepare the Operation Torch American invasion force.

    US action in the Pacific from June 1941 to June 1942 kept Japan off Russia’s back, so if we didn’t do anything in the Pacific and Japan attacked Russia, then Russia would actually be worse off than IRL.

    Like


  485. mandy, those traits you’re complaining about in your defense? You’re exhibiting them; you appear to have a position on every topic that comes up, based on either some book you read or someone you know. That’s lovely and all, as far as it goes, but you are not, actually, an expert in much more than being 17, in Miami, if that.
    I understand that being more interested in academics or certain lifestyle choices than your peers might foster certain traits, but it’s time to begin to realize there is a lot of wheel for you to experience before you start to *maybe* think originally. The special intellectual snowflake probably isn’t yet.

    And, rather than be politely circumspect, aoefe, stop calling LR out for being an attention whore. It’s the pot calling the kettle. Fine to be one, just don’t judge and mock others for the same behavior. That class idea you were throwing around? Works both ways, and is based on more than raising your hand with the cool kids.

    Finally, as apparently I’m feeling bitchy, Doug, stop thinking parroting = intellectual superiority and proper personality. The two may meet, but not always.

    Oh, and mandy, some of the bitchiest, most superior people I know are in the “hard sciences”. The utter belief in superiority and ultimate righteousness of their ‘logic’ trumps all others, so bow the heck down. Yeah, assholes exist across all spectrums. And hey! I gave a personal antidote so my opinion must be valid.

    I’m sure you’re a nice girl, you seem like one, but you’re getting old enough to start seeing the wider world; college should be about expanding your mind, not being insufferable in your own knowledge.

    Like


  486. [email protected]

    Fairness means that there are still losers. Equality (of results) guarantees winners, and deep down inside, we all want to be upper middle class white men, not inferior females of any race or non-white and pathetic and lacking.”

    There must be losers, by necessity, because the prospect of being a loser gives you motivation to, well, avoid being a loser.

    Trying to guarantee equality of results is foolhardy, though compassionate on the surface it is actually anti-compassion because it results in dragging everyone down. you cannot guarantee equality of results without leveling everyone into some sort of baseline. Which means handicapping some, and giving advantages to others.

    If fairness means losers must exist, then this is fair, it is just, mathematically just. Metaphysically just. It is just that some must excel, and others may not. It is just and fair that some may achieve their dreams, and others may not, because if achieving our dreams is to have any real value and any real worth it must be fought for, and not simply handed to us.

    And no, everyone doesn’t want to be upper middle class white men.

    I personally want to be me, your mileage may vary, but I want to be me. Because I accept me. I have problems with me, but fundamentally I want to be none other than me. I have seen the banal mediocre and mundane despair that results from yearning to be other than what we truly are.

    You do not want to be you. And that is a fucking shame.

    Dear godalmighty, where’s Obsidian’s steady pimp slap? I swear, DA, you really need it tonight.

    [email protected] [email protected]

    Doug1, you said all that needs to be said. Whiskey, historically, you may have had a point.. two centuries ago. But even still I challenge it, I do not think that polygamy was anywhere near as widespread as it’s made out to me, simply because most men didn’t have the resources to take more than one wife. As for having two wives, this is essentially much like the long standing Western custom of a man having a Mistress. Again, an upper middle class prerogative, except in this case you had to clothe, feed, and house her.

    I think that you are trying to make the historical facts fit your thesis by shoving them into the hole and stomping on them until they fit. I suggest that your fixation on monogamy as the essential key to what built the West hits on something important, but then blows it up, way out of proportion.

    enjoy reading you, find it provocative, but ultimately I’m not convinced, and as doug points out, you’re wrong on the prevalence of polygamy.

    Like


  487. @al- meow. what got into you tonight?

    Like


  488. on July 1, 2009 at 11:14 pm Gunslingergregi

    Oh shit al is trying to get mandy ready for opening her mind with some nice feminist indoctrination in college isn’t that cute. Where she will be trained that it is ok to be married to a carreer and do whatever her carreer required but not her man.

    Like


  489. The interchange last night, followed by the preening? Yeah, that.

    Apparently I’m in the mood to try and engage in shaming. I’m not a fan of hypocrisy, or of willful banal superiority.

    Like


  490. @Gunslinger:

    I don’t think that’s what al was trying to say.

    @al:

    PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS.

    As it is, you seem to be assuming that because I’m 17, my opinions cannot be valid. Yes, maybe I don’t have the same life experience you do. But fuck it, because I’ve met a lot of clueless adults.

    Furthermore, this sounds insane, but in my life I went through atheism, existentialism, feminism, and I’m currently a Christian looking at Game Theory.

    Basically, I’ve gone through phases, and in each phase I immerse myself in that culture, evaluate it, and take pieces of it with me. I do see elements of game theory present in life. Is it something that may hold true in 100% of all circumstances? Maybe not.

    But as it is, I’m discovering knew things every day. This is part of my learning process. Chill out.

    “I gave a personal antidote so my opinion must be valid.”

    I think the word you were looking for was anecdote. 😉

    Don’t let your anger have a negative impact on your thought processes.

    Like


  491. on July 1, 2009 at 11:26 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””Kamal,
    You do not want to be you. And that is a fucking shame.””””””””””””

    That is why their should be an outlet provided by the government to give people an easy way out that don’t want to play the game here on planet earth. Why is it that everyone must stay here. Why do people make fun of other people but yet at the same time demand demand demand that those people remain on the planet. We are seriously all a bunch of sick fucks. Just got to embrace that I guess and try the best you can for now I guess. lol

    Like


  492. As it is, I shouldn’t have said that liberal arts degrees have no worth, because we do need people that interpret human behavior (psychologists), or evaluate the path that society is taking (sociologists and people who are employed in fields involving human geography) and people who organize the way things are done in society (politicians).

    Mandy, you’re a smart young woman, but I need to correct you on something here. All the careers which you mention above are drawn from learning in the social sciences, not the liberal arts.

    Today, the liberal arts are considered to be philosophy, history, languages, literature, mathematics, and theoretical (not applied) science. In the Middle Ages, they were grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium), and geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy (the quadrivium). In antiquity, they comprised grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music.

    The “liberal arts” were always intended to provide men (only later women) with the kind of broad general knowledge, not excluding deep learning, that would make them fit to be leaders of society – gentlemen who were also political leaders. In a way, as this implies, the liberal arts have always been undemocratic, which is why they suffer so much distortion in democratic regimes.

    Like


  493. @aliasclio:

    Thank you for the correction.

    “The “liberal arts” were always intended to provide men (only later women) with the kind of broad general knowledge, not excluding deep learning, that would make them fit to be leaders of society – gentlemen who were also political leaders. In a way, as this implies, the liberal arts have always been undemocratic, which is why they suffer so much distortion in democratic regimes.”

    That makes sense. Because in colleges and universities, liberal arts students are expected to have one, maybe two, majors, with a minor. The result is a less broad knowledge and more focus on a few subjects.

    Maybe that’s why people (who can afford it and have the time to do it) further their education with master’s and professional degrees- it’s to maximize the potential of a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts.

    hmmm….

    Do you think so?

    Like


  494. @al

    As to your mention earlier of my lack of class (restraint) – I did see an earlier post where you’d clearly indicated your disapproval of me and I decided it was best not to enter any fray with you. When you made a second and then a third reference I thought perhaps it would be rude not to say something. You’ll interpret this as sanctimonious which I’m sorry for. You’d have to see earlier exchanges I’ve had with LR in a historical context in order to know the nature of our relationship. If you’ve been a reader you will also know I don’t make a regular practice of attacking women OR men. I don’t have a beef with you now and I don’t plan on developing one. You have a right to your opinion. If you decide I’m pandering for anyone’s approval in making this statement…well what can I do? We don’t always translate our true feelings and thoughts in the way we intended especially in written word,l I can come across colder than I am (above text).

    @mandy

    You’re a remarkable young woman, I like how you hold
    your own.

    Like


  495. @al – preening, flaming, hypocrisy, and pointless fights are part and parcel of the blogopshere. not least on a testosterone-fueled site such as this one. imho, you get more out of it if you gloss/skim over that part of it and focus on the good stuff. also, bitchy posts don’t suit you! out of charater from how you’ve written before.

    @clio – mathematics a liberal art? really? hmm.. how would you characterize economics? social science, hard science, or liberal art?

    Like


  496. Funny psychology anecdote (I can’t find the article I read a long ways back):

    The Israeli army did a study on post-traumatic stress. One group got psychological counseling while the other did not.

    The one that got the counseling was far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder than the group that had to just suck it up.

    Like


  497. mandy, I don’t object to you having opinions; I object to the righteousness that comes through with some of them. Some of the banality. If I wasn’t clear on that, sorry. (and yes, I recognize I have similar faults, but I try to remember that.)

    And yes, I meant anecdote. Thanks.

    aoefe, look, LR might have irritated you from the beginning or not, but that thread reeks of joining the cool kids to beat up the uncool, and then high-fiving. If you hadn’t high-fived so much … well, if your intention wasn’t gaining approval then I’m sorry for reading it that way.

    Like


  498. on July 1, 2009 at 11:50 pm Virginia Gentleman

    maurice:

    Can I characterize economics as outright flimflammery, perhaps? (The same could probably be applied to my political science degree, but oh well.)

    Meanwhile, I need to change my vote for BOTM. Rod, I used to like your work back at National Review, but your philosophy is wrong in this instance. With the elimination of the Australian media heir, you’re number one.

    Like


  499. @VG- actually, it’s a social science that *desperately* wishes and believes itself to be a hard science. it’s about human behavior – there are no fundamental equations of motion to be found. because it’s more quantifiable, you could say it’s a “harder” social science than poli sci. but it’s definitely not voodoo- there’s a lot there, even quite a bit of predictive power. but it’s not physics, and never will be.

    Like


  500. maurice: in my humble opinion, being a bitch and getting annoyed at little things is never out of character for a woman. It’s usually under control and overwhelmed by several other considerations, but especially comes out with stress and tiredness. Actually, nevermind women. Even men too but what would be called ‘bitchiness’ in a woman is, I think, still more behaviourally sanctioned with men and aggressively toned. Perhaps feminism can’t brainwash the masses completely.

    chic: love you.

    aoefe: love you too.

    I wouldn’t mind some more “sister wives” if they’re you guys, flaws and all. And definitely if it makes prince of my heart Doug happy.

    Like


  501. @al
    well, if your intention wasn’t gaining approval then I’m sorry for reading it that way.

    I appreciate the feedback truthfully. It embarrasses me a bit to think I was percieved as high fiving…crap. I will and would again call anyone out on out and out bullshit. Crowing about it, not really my style, so sorry if it came across that way. I’m hear to learn and learning I am. 🙂

    Like


  502. @Bhetti

    You’ve been much missed – welcome back!! Are you done school for now? Summer break?

    Like


  503. @al:

    “mandy, I don’t object to you having opinions; I object to the righteousness that comes through with some of them. Some of the banality. If I wasn’t clear on that, sorry. (and yes, I recognize I have similar faults, but I try to remember that.)”
    I do not intend to be righteous. I know that maybe a lot of what I say/think may be changed, shaken up, proven wrong within the next ten years.

    I apologize for seeming that way. May I ask, in what moments did I specifically sound righteous? I need to be more self-aware in that regard.

    As for banality- I’m going to be blunt. All of us can go through life without thinking an original thought. All of us probably will go through life without thinking a thought that has not flitted across someone else’s consciousness. What matters is that our thoughts are original to us at that moment, and as we discover them and grow.

    This may be annoying to everyone around us. One of the reasons I found Emme annoying was because her arguments were SO OLD. But then, isn’t everything old?

    Technically, aren’t the stories we tell day to day, that seem new in our lives, copies of other people’s stories, published or not, the only things different being the people and places? So technically, can’t we all go through life living the same as someone else, but only thinking we are different because we are different on the surface.

    And even humans pick out the differences in surface appearances to tell one another apart, but aren’t we more genetically similar to one another than different?

    How many times have scientists in different parts of the globe fought each other, racing to make the same discoveries? How many times have we found somewhat similar architecture from two different civilizations (think pyramids in Latin America and Egypt) who couldn’t possibly communicate?

    The tissues we are made of are all the same. Our biological central processing systems (central nervous systems) are all the same.

    So then, couldn’t those releases of chemicals yield similar results?

    I apologize if you’ve heard this speech before.

    “And yes, I meant anecdote. Thanks.”

    I was being anal. 😛

    Like


  504. @bhetti:

    “in my humble opinion, being a bitch and getting annoyed at little things is never out of character for a woman. It’s usually under control and overwhelmed by several other considerations, but especially comes out with stress and tiredness.”

    Nice to know I’m not insane when those little moments happen to me. ;]

    And it’s nice to see the famous chickie I’ve heard good things about.

    Like


  505. on July 2, 2009 at 12:10 am Gunslingergregi

    omg there kissing and making up jesus h christ.

    Bhetti comes back on and tries to turn it into a lesbian room.

    Come on now.

    Just joking.

    Whats up bhetti.

    Like


  506. aoefe:
    “It embarrasses me a bit to think I was percieved as high fiving…crap.”

    aoefe, screw al. If this was about the bit of detective work, I remember doing the equivalent of a high five to you. It was a cleaver bit of work and I applauded you for it. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would dislike LR, who is an “uncool kid” here because she of who she is, not because she wears last seasons shoes.

    mandy:
    “One of the reasons I found Emme annoying was because her arguments were SO OLD.”

    She had an argument? All I remember is the “All women are so utterly amazing, you puny men!” type nonsense.

    Like


  507. on July 2, 2009 at 12:18 am Gunslingergregi

    Chanting and drums in the background

    Napalm
    Napalm
    Napalm

    Like


  508. @cptnapalm:

    “She had an argument? All I remember is the “All women are so utterly amazing, you puny men!” type nonsense.”

    Well, it was her attempt at an argument.

    Like


  509. Aw, you guys. Yes, am free! Summertime and the livin’ is easy…

    It’s like the calm before the storm..

    I definitely don’t feel like quite the same Bhetti. Something has changed. Something good. Someone I love. Someone you know.

    Even the angels are losing sleep…

    😉

    Like


  510. on July 2, 2009 at 12:38 am Gunslingergregi

    Doug better take care of you or I’ll be coming on a pale horse and hells comin’ with me.

    he he he

    Like


  511. on July 2, 2009 at 12:42 am Tupac Chopra

    Today, the liberal arts are considered to be philosophy, history, languages, literature, mathematics, and theoretical (not applied) science. In the Middle Ages, they were grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium), and geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy (the quadrivium). In antiquity, they comprised grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music.

    Clio, you’re giving me a boner with that kind of talk.

    A very very big boner.

    Like


  512. on July 2, 2009 at 12:48 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””””””’Bhetti,
    I wouldn’t mind some more “sister wives” if they’re you guys, flaws and all. And definitely if it makes prince of my heart Doug happy.”””””””””””””

    I am prob gonna have to use that one “sister wives”. Got to give props to doug for grabbing the package and going for two at a time with now permission for more.

    Like


  513. Bhetti!!! You’re back!

    That’s all.

    Like


  514. @cptnapalm

    I’m proud of the detective work. As I said I’d do it again if I see/smell BS. Thanks for your comment. 🙂

    @bhetti

    OK! Give it up…love…someone we know…you can’t leave us hanging. Scoop please. (I know its Doug involved)

    Like


  515. on July 2, 2009 at 12:50 am Gunslingergregi

    Tupoc time to move to canada and wash dishes maybe do a little mopping he he he

    Like


  516. I think we’re extrapolating a tad too much, given the photographic evidence is sketchy at best. Shout out to the G, you pretty much nailed it. I also have a question for G, irrelevant to the post, more for a personal project. Any thoughts on game and using those skills at the poker table.

    Like


  517. aoefe:

    Doug.

    My love.

    Of course.

    Now, to sleep with me, up at 6am of all times.

    Like


  518. on July 2, 2009 at 1:00 am Tupac Chopra

    Tupoc time to move to canada and wash dishes maybe do a little mopping he he he

    I’ve been considering it, what with the two fine exemplars of Canadian womanhood we have here.

    Don’t think I’d enjoy gaffing telephone poles in that kind of weather, though.

    Like


  519. on July 2, 2009 at 1:20 am Gunslingergregi

    Yea they don’t seem too bad. Plus you would get something for your taxes. Health insurance. Only problem is they took the guns away.

    Like


  520. on July 2, 2009 at 1:50 am Willard Libby

    cptnapalm – mandy: “One of the reasons I found Emme annoying was because her arguments were SO OLD.”

    She had an argument? All I remember is the “All women are so utterly amazing, you puny men!” type nonsense.

    Most men are puny compared to that female land manatee.

    She’s afraid to comeback for fear that my speed boat’s propeller will rip up her back.

    Like


  521. @heloise- welcome back, sweetie! hope your exams went well. did doug jr. suurvive the ordeal?

    Like


  522. Holy crap on a stick! If that billionaire guy is a ‘beta’ then he makes being ‘omega’ look good. At least Omega males don’t have women trying to run their lives into the ground. Sheesh! To be a billionaire and a loser like that he’s no an Omega but just Beta enough to be stupid and dangerous (esp. to himself). 😐

    Like


  523. @tupac

    “Don’t think I’d enjoy gaffing telephone poles in that kind of weather, though.”

    I love my country (for the most part) but honestly our weather except for a few short months of the year is pretty brutal. It’s different of course from province to province, but relatively speaking from coast to coast winter is a loooooong season. Maybe warm women make up for it, maybe not. 🙂

    Like


  524. “Oh, and mandy, some of the bitchiest, most superior people I know are in the “hard sciences”. The utter belief in superiority and ultimate righteousness of their ‘logic’ trumps all others, so bow the heck down. Yeah, assholes exist across all spectrums.”

    Ha ha, ain’t that the truth. Scientists are well aware that we’re smarter than just about everybody else. The down side is that we make mistaken assumptions about the quality of our conclusions outside our areas of expertise AND that we don’t take into account other factors necessary for success in management, leadership, etc. There is nothing more devastating to the view of scientists as logical superhumans than an hour spent in a typical faculty meeting.

    Like


  525. on July 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm An Experienced Father

    Virginia Gentleman said:

    >Rum:
    >
    >Had the Type XXI U-boat been deployed, we would have
    >had an absolute nightmare on our hands, since it had
    >considerable underwater speed and endurance.

    No.

    The US and Royal Navy’s had deployed radar, sonarbouys, and air dropped acoustic torpedos in 1944 on the TBF Avenger, B-24, Catalina, and PBJ anti-sub planes.

    Any sub using a snorkel near an Allied Atlantic convoy 1944(+) was going to be picked up by airborne or surface search ship radar and get a plane with both sonar buoy’s and homing torpedos vectored on top of it.

    Assuming that ASW plane vectoring wasn’t done with Ultra first, as happened the Japanese cargo sub I-52.

    See this

    http://www.acepilots.com/planes/avenger.html

    “Sinking of I-52

    In an extraordinary engagement, Avengers from USS Bogue CVE-9, the top sub-killing CVE of the Atlantic, sank the Japanese transport submarine, I-52. In 1943 the Japanese and Germans worked out a plan to exchange critical materials via specialized cargo submarines: opium, rubber, quinine, tungsten, and molybdenum from the Japanese for German radar, bombsights, vacuum tubes, optical glass, ball bearings, etc.. In March, 1944, I-52 departed Kure, picked up cargo in Singapore and headed through the Indian Ocean, all monitored by U.S. intelligence. It rendezvoused with a German sub U-530 on June 23, in the mid-Atlantic, and picked up a German pilot who would guide I-52 into port at Lorient. There the exchange was planned to take place.

    But Allied “Ultra” intercepts had pinpointed I-52’s movements and even its cargo. Within hours of I-52’s meeting with U-530, this information had been relayed to Bogue. The commander of its Composite Squadron 69 (VC-69), Lt. Cdr. Jesse Taylor, immediately took off in his TBF in pursuit of the Jap sub. As Taylor patrolled in the darkness, his radarman, Chief Ed Whitlock, picked up a blip. They went after it and dropped flares, lighting up the 350-foot long cargo sub. Taylor closed in, dropping two depth bombs. I-52 dived and the TBF dropped a sonobuoy into the water. The newly-developed sonobuoys picked up long-carrying underwater noises and transmitted these back to the carrier. Following the sonobuoy’s signal, Taylor dropped a Mark 24 “Fido” acoustic torpedo. The sonobuoy transmitted the crunching sound of explosions back to Bogue. While Taylor thought he had sunk the sub, other Avengers soon picked up propeller beats. Bogue’s CO, Captain A. B. Vosseller, ordered a second attack; William “Flash” Gordon flew his TBF to the site and dropped another torpedo. The I-52 swiftly went to the bottom, with a huge hole in her hull. Next morning, U.S. destroyers found I-52’s flotsam: a ton of raw rubber, bit of silk, and even human flesh.”

    Like


  526. That’s ‘cuz Israel didn’t realize that re-integration therapy is the way to go, they isolated survivors for treatment and re-focused them on the trauma. Things have gotten better but because the system was swamped with 10,000 civilian casualties from 2001-2003 it’s still, by 1st world standards, crap. Hamas/Jihad does not realize that for some of us, the rockets are an improvement–15 seconds warning is still warning, time enough to change the psychological nature of the experience for the target. A danger you have time to hide from, even if it’s “duck & cover”, makes you something other than a helpless victim.

    (A Predator drone means never saying “I’m sorry.”)

    Like


  527. I’ll indulge my penchant for ww2 history for a bit: twasn’t the Gerrys that sounded the death knell of the Royal Navy

    it was the Japanese, near Singapore, I believe. They used superior air power to sink the Prince of Wales and many of the ships that had a hand in destroying the Bismarck.

    They never recovered.

    Same thing with the Battle of Britain (it’s no matter what movies claim). England’s fighter arm and it’s pilots were never effective again. Some would say that afterward, they safely relied on US air power to save the day.

    Like


  528. on July 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm An Experienced Father

    Tarl said:

    >They planned and executed the campaign poorly, that’s
    >why they lost. This doesn’t mean it was impossible for
    >them to win under any circumstances. Just really, really
    >hard!

    It was flat out logistically impossible for the Nazi Germans to take down Soviet Russia in a single year campaign.

    Period.

    Dot.

    Germany and Japan together might have, but that would require the Japanese to commit naval national suicide in front of the American and British fleets due to a lack of fuel.

    You might as well believe Hitler and Tojo both had the sweet disposition of Lassie.

    >Stolfi makes a plausible case that it was possible in
    >Hitler’s Panzer’s East.

    Stolfi was an idiot and engaged in as much logistical fantasy planning as the WW2 German General Staff.

    The fall of Moscow was _marginally_ possible in August 1941, as was the fall of Stalin’s government, assuming the Germans got everything right and the Russians didn’t.

    The collapse of the Russian will to fight and the conquest of Russia, after the fall of both Moscow and Stalin, are far different matters.

    Not pocketing the Russian Army at Kiev to go for Moscow means that the pocketed Soviet Army at Kiev survives to fight later on the German flanks. That was double plus ungood for Nazi supply lines, which is why Hitler ordered the encirclement.

    It is just as easy to imagine the Russian troops that were historically captured at Kiev, instead cut off the Panzerwaffe inside a captured Moscow, as the depths of Russian winter falls in Dec 1941.

    I’ll quote one of the reviewers on Amazon.com regards Stofi’s arguments:

    “But Stolfi is not nearly so persuasive in arguing that the fall of Moscow would inexorably entail the fall of Soviet Russia. The author consistently analogizes the campaign in Russia to Germany’s earlier campaign in France, concluding that Russia was “no more than a bigger cat in a bigger bag.” A fundamental difference between the two campaigns appears to have escaped him; the Germans’ crushing victory over the French and British in May 1940 was accomplished in the absence of any Allied strategic reserve. Once the Germans broke through at Sedan, the Western Allies had no uncommitted forces to throw at Guderian’s armored corps as it raced to the sea, and thus could only hurl uncoordinated piecemeal attacks at him with whatever units they could pry loose as he trapped their armies in Flanders.

    In contrast, the Soviets had a strategic reserve vastly larger than the Abwehr realized. And Stolfi, dependent on German sources, appears no more cognizant than the Abwehr of those reserves’ size. Total Red Army strength with reserves at the start of Barbarossa is estimated at 12 million, but Stolfi suggests that his hypothetical assault on Moscow, by causing an additional 1 million casualties beyond those the Russians actually incurred historically, would have destroyed Soviet Russia’s strategic reserve. In reality, the Soviet reserve was large enough to fight on.

    Stolfi also posits the likely political collapse of Stalin’s government had Moscow fallen. This is possible, but a corresponding collapse of the Russian will to fight is unlikely. The Russians were confronted with an invader whose words and deeds plainly proclaimed its intention to enslave all Russians to the “master race.” Whoever might have replaced Stalin at the helm, he would certainly be chosen above all for his determination to drive the enemy from Mother Russia.

    Stolfi also argues, unpersuasively, that the Germans had accurately assessed the rigors of war in Russia, citing a few accurate Abwehr estimates of Russian numbers in certain arms, and claiming that the Germans, out of respect for Russian strength, massed as much strength as practical against the enemy. This is not true. Germany left 51 divisions in the western theater, 22 of which could easily have been used in Barbarossa, the Western Allies being in no condition to invade Europe in 1941. The Abwehr’s gross underestimation of Soviet air strength is not mentioned.

    Even by Stolfi’s own calculations, the campaign would have lasted through December had Moscow fallen, yet Stolfi claims the Wehrmacht was right not to burden its supply system by providing winter clothing to the troops.

    Accepting Stolfi’s own appraisal of the ultimate progress of the Wehrmacht after taking Moscow, one notes that the predicted final advance is still well short of the line Archangelsk-Kotlas-Gorki-the Volga-Astrakhan, which Barbarossa proposed to achieve.
    I accept Guderian’s verdict over Stolfi’s:
    “We have severely underestimated the Russians, the extent of the country and the treachery of the climate. This is the revenge of reality.””

    Like the reviewer, I agree with Guderian’s verdict.

    Stofi’s argument falls under the category of “Believe six impossible things about Axis logistical capabilities before breakfast.” This is a fallacy that people like Harry Turtledove use to write alternate WW2 history books.

    These are the same sorts of arguments that American Southerners make about winning Gettysburg. Like General Pickett said: “The Union Army had something to do with it.”

    The same applies with Stolfi talking about the
    Germans taking Moscow.

    Like


  529. on July 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm An Experienced Father

    Tarl said:

    >Nah. The US delivered 2.4 million tons of LL to Russia in
    >1942, probably about as much as we could given the
    >available shipping. If you look at the Global Logistics and
    >Strategy volume of the US Army in WW2 series, it says
    >we met our Lend-Lease commitments in 1942. We signed
    >an agreement in October 1941 of what we would deliver;
    >deliveries fell behind after Pearl Harbor; but, by August
    >1942 they had caught up.

    and

    >Nah. The US delivered 2.4 million tons of LL to Russia in
    >1942, probably about as much as we could given the
    >available shipping. If you look at the Global Logistics and
    >Strategy volume of the US Army in WW2 series, it says
    >we met our Lend-Lease commitments in 1942. We signed
    >an agreement in October 1941 of what we would deliver;
    >deliveries fell behind after Pearl Harbor; but, by August
    >1942 they had caught up.

    The USA not being at war with Germany and Japan means the million plus tons of Allied shipping lost in 1942 on the American East Coast and Caribbean is available to move supplies and arms from the West Coast to the eastern Soviet Union.

    The Soviet/Russian merchant marine was cycling from the American west coast to Vladivostok the whole war.

    Putting Russian flags, paint jobs and sailors on additional American freighters was no big thing even then.

    Hitler was going to declare war on the USA the moment Japan attacked the USA. The only way to avoid that attack would be if the USA didn’t do a complete oil embargo on the Japanese.

    Given that fact chain, the USA not in the war means those 1942 US pacific theater military armaments to fight the Japanese are available for shipment to Russia on the freighters not sunk by Germany.

    >The issue is getting it there. It is not clear to me that we
    >would have gotten “more stuff” to the Russians if we
    >hadn’t entered the war, given the constraints on shipping
    >plus the problems at the Soviet end (e.g. limited port
    >capacity and inability to turn ships around quickly; limited
    >railroads from the Persian Gulf to the USSR; limitations of
    >the Trans-Siberian RR).

    The Russians moved 40 divisions of Siberian troops to Moscow Trans-Siberian RR in Dec 1941 at peak surge capacity.

    Worse comes to worse, America ships additional rail engines and rolling stock with its weapons to Russia in 1942. We had surpus rail road building capacity at the time.

    We did that historically in 1943/44 both due to the over use of the Trans-Siberian RR plus rolling stock and the need for the Russians to move rail lines west to support it’s army.

    Russian mobility, and particularly the strategic depth of its late WW2 offensives, was entirely dependent on delivery of lend-lease American trucks. Specifically those delivered in the period July 1943 – October 1944, mostly July 1943 – April 1944.

    Like


  530. maurice: Doug Jr. is doing very well and recovered rather miraculously. He is my miracle goldfish. Flatmate was sure he was a goner, but this future doctor didn’t let him get away with that.

    Exams were too much fun and brilliant and fantastic — got my flipping awesome-surpassing-expectation results just an hour ago — all thanks to Doug sr. and his Master Strategising. Also his mastery. Also his hotness. Also his… right, I’m such a completely besotted bint.

    Like


  531. well you have a great walad, you little bint you.

    Like


  532. maurice: you have that so right, my Arabic-knowing compadre! Well, rajul (MAN) rather than walad (young dude). Definitely rajul. Complete rajul. Yum.

    Like


  533. the malik of your qalb. the rais of your dawla. the abu of your samaka.

    Like


  534. MAURICE!! Check you out. Where were you hiding these lingo skills?!

    Yes, king of my heart, ruler of my country, father of my fish.

    Like


  535. Sorry but I gotta give an idea of how well she did in her med school results.

    She aced them. Not only did she get a Merit for the overall finals and year, which is all they really say in official future placement results, but it looks like she’s in the top ten percent.

    Fabulous.

    Like


  536. congrats bhetti! don’t mean to belittle your achievement, but no surprise. you’re very precocious.. now you can spend more time hanging out online over the summer.

    any travel plans now that classes are over? back to the gulf for a month or two to visit the Aa’eelah?

    Like


  537. @LR

    I called you out on your statements on your ex-bf first of all, that was easy to prove because I copied your statements and they spoke for themselves.

    I called you out on your statement to Roissy that he had no effect on you on your blog. I don’t care that you had a myspace blog before. I pointed out you opened your current blog, linked it here after you began commenting on this blog. Your post and when it was written (ala creepy men et al) was not one I made, I simply referred to it as the first post in your blog. Your link to “shrieking school girl Roissy in DC” in your blog roll indicated that yes indeedy Roissy effects you. I know that makes my point, however you remain as difficult as ever.

    I have no doubt that one of these find days I may have my day in the sun (meaning hell fire) with the men here. I’m not seeking their approval for the sake of it, I just happen to agree with much of what they say. And that my dear rankles women much more than it rankles men. Interesting.

    Like


  538. @bhetti

    Way to go girl!

    Like


  539. on July 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm Gunslingergregi

    “hugs aoefe platonically”

    Like


  540. maurice: Thank goodness for precociousness if it gives me such gifts (including ameer ‘omri)! I fear I am trapped upon this Isle that is now my tower for the time being.

    aoefe: thank you! Love your piece of cyberspace there, gorgeous 😉

    Like


  541. @LR

    “That blog IS in my myspace blogs dated April 2008.”

    I see where some of the confusion is coming from. I differentiate between posts and blogs. You mentioned you didn’t have a problem with Roissy because you hadn’t made a post about him. I agree with you on this point, you don’t have a post per se on Roissy, my point was he does in fact impact you (i.e. blog creation and the blog roll insult). Maybe that will clear up what you thought I was saying wrong?

    Like


  542. @bhetti

    Thank you for visiting. 🙂 I visit you too – great stuff – and I’m positive you’re gorgeous but I understand the picture isn’t you.

    @Gunslingergregi

    “hugs Gunslingergregi oh so platonically back”

    Like


  543. dam bhetti i though you died, or some shit.

    Like


  544. on July 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm Virginia Gentleman

    An Experienced Father:

    Can’t concur. The Allied ASW effort was geared to deal with torpedo boats that just happened to be capable of short dives at slow speeds. Type XXI boats, on the other hand, could pull 17 knots submerged, more than twice what the VII and IX boats could do. It’s also faster than the FIDO.

    I think that an organized deployment of the Type XXI would have been very dangerous to the convoys, radar and HF/DF not withstanding. Could they have been overcome? Perhaps. I don’t think it would have changed the overall outcome, but it would have lengthened the war.

    Some sources suggest that the Type XXI snorkel was difficult to detect; when you can’t find them and can’t effectively attack them if you do manage to find them, then they’re going to do a lot of damage.

    Like


  545. Collegeboy: Seriously, have a not-halal hug. I am sorry for worrying you. Doug would’ve reassured you I was fine and happy, just focusing on exams.

    Like


  546. on July 2, 2009 at 5:37 pm An Experienced Father

    Virginia Gentleman

    The development of forward firing ASW bomb throwers on Allied surface ships and the radar/sonar bouy/homing torpedo combination on aircraft meant there would be more and more effective effective attacks on the Type XXI U-boats whenever they approach an Allied convoy, compared to 1939-42 for the earlier U-boats.

    IOW, if you are running from a pair of DE’s you can hear after a torpedo attack on the convoy, the ASW plane you can’t will place sonar bouy’s and homing torpedos on your projected course.

    This also leaves out what happened when Allied planes use DF/HF and Ultra to generate contacts to drive the subs off the path of the convoys.

    Bear in mind that the US Navy converted 95 Destroyer escorts to Pacific theater APDs (High Speed Amphibious Transports) in 1944-45 because of the collapsing German U-boat threat.

    Keeping those ships as sub hunters and deploying more long range ASW aircraft — which at that time were virtually without number if required — would have dealt with the Germans Type XXI U-boats in 1944.

    The additional escorts would allow longer prosecutions of ASW contacts without the loss of effective close in protection of merchantmen. Escorts doing that got left behind, but then could join other convoys or the roving CVE hunter-killer escort groups formed in 1944.

    Like


  547. on July 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm An Experienced Father

    Virginia Gentleman,

    There were some really good reasons why the Type XXI didn’t make it into general German naval service.

    Albert Speer was playing procurement politics favoritism.

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XXI_U-boat

    “Between 1943 and 1945, 118 boats of this type were assembled by Blohm & Voss of Hamburg, AG Weser of Bremen, and F. Schichau of Danzig. The hulls were constructed from 8 prefabricated sections with final assembly taking place at the shipyards.

    This new method could have pushed construction time below six months per vessel, but in reality all the assembled U-boats were plagued with severe quality problems that required extensive post-production work to fix.

    The blame lay as much with the cutting-edge technology as with Albert Speer’s insistence that the sections be made by inland companies, even though these had little experience in shipbuilding.

    It would have made more sense to concentrate all construction at the shipyards, where the expertise was available to build sophisticated vessels.

    The extent of the industrial fiasco can be gauged by the fact that out of 118 assembled XXIs, only four were rated fit for combat before the war ended in Europe.[1]”

    Like


  548. on July 2, 2009 at 5:58 pm Virginia Gentleman

    An Experienced Father:

    I think Speer was going on the model of building in dispersed areas so that Eighth Air Force couldn’t show up one sunny morning and ruin one shipyard, thus negating months of work. It’s a good theory; reportedly, that sort of method increased aircraft production and may have helped with tank production; I don’t know much about their armor other than “Ooh, Tiger!” We apparently were very good at plastering shipyards with bombs whenever necessary.

    Question: Was FIDO good against an advancing target?

    Also, how good was the integration of sonobuoys and the escorts? If I understand the sonar of the day, the high speeds necessary to prosecute a Type XXI would have nullified passive detection and complicated active measures; likewise, didn’t Hedgehog require you to back off a bit so that the launching vessel didn’t run right into the shockwave created? I vaguely remember something about that.

    For the record, I utterly hate the Hedgehog when used against me in simulations.

    The CVE hunter-killer groups were in fact very effective, but I’m not certain their effectiveness would have been so great against the Type XXI, especially if Doenitz had started aiming for them, too. As I said before, I don’t think the Type XXI would have changed the war’s outcome, but it certainly might have rung up the bill and/or prolonged it.

    I’m willing to bet that none of the bartenders in the topic picture could have this discussion, so they’re definitely not Alfa. Ha ha.

    Like


  549. It was over but for the fighting once the American economy mobilized for war

    best comment ever wrt WWII.

    Like


  550. on July 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm An Experienced Father

    >Question: Was FIDO good against an advancing target?

    The better question is whether German Type XXI passive sensors can hear high speed torpedo screws ahead of it when moving at high speed.

    Consider the tactical implications of that.

    As for hedgehog “own goals,” this is what globalsecurity.org had to say:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/de-ww2.htm

    “Still, depth charges had two principal disadvantages: First, they required the attacking ship to overrun the submarine, meaning that for a few moments the ship’s own propeller and movement sounds would blank out the U-boat noises; second, the depth charges, pre-set to explode at the sub-marine’s estimated depth, would always explode and this further masked any submarine sounds. Under these circumstances there were several min-utes when the submarine could not be heard and unless it sustained damage from the exploding pat-tern of depth charges could use the opportunity to evade pursuers.

    To overcome these limitations the ahead-throwing hedgehog was developed. This weapon fired 24 relatively small, rocket-like projectiles into the water some 250 yards ahead of the escort ship. The projectiles entered the water in a large, circular pattern and plummeted through the depths, explod-ing only upon contact with a submarine hull. Al-though the 31-pound explosive charge was smaller than a depth charge, it could still inflict significant damage on a submarine. The weapon was dubbed “hedgehog” because the launcher spigots which held the projectiles were somewhat akin to the protruding quills of a porcupine or hedgehog.

    When armed with the hedgehog, the destroyer or destroyer escort could keep sonar contact with the submarine throughout the attack, without the ship’s detection equipment being impaired by the ship’s own noises or exploding depth charges. Also, there was no need to estimate the submarine’s depth because the projectiles exploded upon contact.”

    Effectively, the Type XXI is deployed in numbers would have made the Royal Navy Flower class corvette obsolecent.

    Like


  551. “gina tingle”

    laconic;

    local vasodilation as a top-down social governor.

    Like


  552. Bhetti
    Good on you for your exams. Here is another question for you: “What do you call the guy who finished last in his class in Med School?”

    Like


  553. Rum: Chief Medical Officer for England?

    Like


  554. Bhetti–

    Rum: “What do you call the guy who finished last in his class in Med School?”

    @Rum: Chief Medical Officer for England?

    LoL

    Sounds clear backlash to the dude’s campaign to eradicate below 50p beer to me!! Not directly from you I wouldn’t suppose, but rather your (aces) study group compadres, or wider med school surround!

    I member from my own time at the LSE, the place had it’s own Uni owned pub in the basement of the main lecture building. Lots of strongly held and argued passions about things ale and beer. No minor matters, unconnected to class, region, the ever looming pressures and threats of the nationals on the locals, and on and on. Oh, and Yank beer was always good for ridicule (not unreasonably, esp. then).

    Like


  555. Doug: I was just blaming the man for The State of the National Health Service (fun British activity).

    Clearly I have a whole mountain of ignorance on alcohol that is yet to be filled.

    Like


  556. There is only one reason this blog exists: to make men feel better about themselves or divorce themselves from the reality that in the end it’s women who run the show. You guys can make believe all you want that you pwned us with your childish game playing and slick dissection of the female body and mind but when it comes down to it you’ll take anything you can get.

    Men are simply inferior in comparison to their feminine counterparts

    Like


  557. Bhetti

    I think you get my intended punch-line.
    That little joke is like a lot of Medical Humor in that the meaning is far from obvious.
    Everybody who gets into Med School, in the anglosphere anyway, has spent their entire young lives in the top few percentiles of whatever they have done. But in Med School and in Residency it is dead certain that 90% of them will not be in the top 10%. Indeed, half will be below average and somebody will have to fill out the bottom ranks. The attitude adjustment that is needed to deal with this in a healthy way is often hard for med students to achieve.
    Here is another one to translate: “All bleeding stops.”

    Like


  558. Gosh, anonymous, your taunts are so original and incisive it is hard to find the nerve to even attempt a reply.
    Also, calling yourself “anonymous” shows how much confidence you have in arguing your points.

    Like


  559. on July 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm Gunslingergregi

    2nd to gang beat on anon. Yea lady rain is in our gang now only we can beat her. he he he

    Like


  560. on July 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm Gunslingergregi

    Anon’s jealously is not so thinly veiled sad really how the frontal working of the mind have such a hard time controlling the inner workings. Or is it not so sad. Or it it what makes us human. Yea get you conscience to agree with your subconcience you might feel better.

    Like


  561. This is not a taunt. A taunt has malicious intent. I harbor no ill will, merely an unemotionally invested observation.

    Like


  562. “Also, calling yourself “anonymous” shows how much confidence you have in arguing your points.”

    I could say the same about not having a link to your blog.

    Like


  563. @anony- well, there appeared to be a bit of malicious intent in your first post above. not sure if you’re the usual female anonymous who posts here – probably not, judging by the tone. either way, you yourself are obviously trolling for attention/debate. which is fine. defend this, please – elaborate, give details and examples:

    “Men are simply inferior in comparison to their feminine counterparts”

    and- re this:

    “the reality that in the end it’s women who run the show. You guys can make believe all you want that you pwned us with your childish game playing and slick dissection of the female body and mind but when it comes down to it you’ll take anything you can get.”

    really? if that slick dissection allows us to fuck above our station, then we’ll happily do so. and those fuck-ees will be happy as well. the same way that looks/female seduction allows a woman to shoot above her station. neither gender necessarily takes “whatever it can get” if it can do better. this blog shows men how to do better.

    your response, if any, will indicate whether you are deserve flaming with passionate hate or engaging in fruitful discussion. the choice is yours, my love. i know you’ll make the right choice.

    Like


  564. @maurice

    “if that slick dissection allows us to fuck above our station, then we’ll happily do so. and those fuck-ees will be happy as well. the same way that looks/female seduction allows a woman to shoot above her station. neither gender necessarily takes “whatever it can get” if it can do better. this blog shows men how to do better. ”

    It also teaches women good stuff too. 🙂

    Like


  565. on July 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””’aoefe,
    It also teaches women good stuff too. ””””””””’

    wtf oh shit ban woman. j/k

    Like


  566. @gunslingergregi

    No need for ban, it teaches us how to keep looking good for our men. How to deliver snacks in nothing but aprons, how to stop flaunting our smarts, how to know when and when not to open our mouths…good stuff. 😉

    Like


  567. aoefe

    it teaches us how to keep looking good for our men. How to deliver snacks in nothing but aprons

    see gunny – just how i like it: Aero Bars and CoffeeCrisp.

    now I want Butter Tart

    Like


  568. on July 3, 2009 at 3:51 pm Gunslingergregi

    Yea it does seem to be going that route. Even for the formerly hardcore woman. Wild stuff really.

    Like


  569. on July 3, 2009 at 3:54 pm Gunslingergregi

    Roissies blog will be the thing that causes world peace and harmony. Wild shit.

    Like


  570. on July 3, 2009 at 3:55 pm Gunslingergregi

    And pretty much shows that freadom of expression is ok. It can even help to alleviate from doing things that are considered evil.

    Like


  571. @Firepower

    Mmmmm butter tarts, I make a good one. Raisins or no?

    Like


  572. I don’t think anyone has said this, but the chick’s face looks plastic! Maybe he likes her because he can see his reflection. Then that would make him alpha cuz she’s just a reflection of him…no wait…her bad behaviour makes her a bad reflection on him…forget it…*when stream of consciousness goes wrong

    Like


  573. Has to be the billionaire for the main qualification you pointed out. He could so easily land a replacement, easier than 99% of men on Earth could. Fashion, wealth, connections and the like are all taken care of for him. He just has to show up for fuck’s sake.

    Like


  574. Having been with a multitude of rich and powerful men (to include presidential appointees and famous authors because I tend to gravitate toward status fucks) I can tell you first hand that the majority of these men are socially awkward and possess little if any game beyond their prominent placement in the upper echelon.

    Often they feel lucky if anything in a skirt pays attention to them and are they not very astute when it comes to figuring out women. Simply having to show up poses no challenge. Bad girls, on the other hand…

    Like


  575. Rum:

    All bleeding stops.

    All I can think of is either it is stopped before they die or it is stopped by their heart stopping and/or they run out of blood. But it stops.

    Dark, that!

    Like


  576. I do know several ways to stop bleeding besides death. Really, I don’t know why I feel the need to say this. Of course I do. ‘Course you know that.

    Like


  577. Bhetti

    Next time you hear “All bleeding stops”just nod knowingly. The phrase is just a roundabout way of reminding everyone that clinically obvious bleeding is a surprisingly transient phenomenon. You gotta stop it pretty quickly or it will stop because you did not stop it.

    Like


  578. @Maurice

    on July 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm maurice
    @anony- well, there appeared to be a bit of malicious intent in your first post above. not sure if you’re the usual female anonymous who posts here – probably not, judging by the tone. either way, you yourself are obviously trolling for attention/debate. which is fine. defend this, please – elaborate, give details and examples:

    “Men are simply inferior in comparison to their feminine counterparts”

    and- re this:

    “the reality that in the end it’s women who run the show. You guys can make believe all you want that you pwned us with your childish game playing and slick dissection of the female body and mind but when it comes down to it you’ll take anything you can get.”

    Well, the truth is rather banal. You have dicks. We don’t. Your biological makeup renders you weaker. If women are as naturally cunning and deceitful as Roissy maintains, then you will always lose in the end. What is the most important piece to you in a game of chess? Imagine starting off sans piece or pieces and you understand what I’m getting it except in this case you are equipped with something that is a major hindrance.

    “really? if that slick dissection allows us to fuck above our station, then we’ll happily do so. and those fuck-ees will be happy as well. the same way that looks/female seduction allows a woman to shoot above her station. neither gender necessarily takes “whatever it can get” if it can do better. this blog shows men how to do better.”

    Well, first I must understand what above your station means. Do you mean you feel yourself inadequate or do socially speaking?

    your response, if any, will indicate whether you are deserve flaming with passionate hate or engaging in fruitful discussion. the choice is yours, my love. i know you’ll make the right choice.

    If you hate me passionately I wil be honored for the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

    Like


  579. @anony-

    blockquote
    You have dicks. We don’t. Your biological makeup renders you weaker. If women are as naturally cunning and deceitful as Roissy maintains, then you will always lose in the end.
    /blockquote

    men’s biological makeup – strength, reason, hierarchy, competition, order – form the basis of civilization. women play a complemetary role, of course, and are equals in many ways. but cunning and deceit are marks of the weaker sex, the need to manipulate rather than do.

    blockquote
    Well, first I must understand what above your station means. Do you mean you feel yourself inadequate or do socially speaking?
    /blockquote

    higher in the attractiveness scale. thought that would have been obvious from context. unattractive women getting alpha males, average guys getting hot women. batting above expectations. it’s rare, so people tend to notice when it happens.

    blockquote
    If you hate me passionately I wil be honored for the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.
    /blockquote

    no hate – you’re doing fine. engagement merited. one thing, though – your nom-de-web is not exactly scintillatingly original. if you truly collect status-fuck notches on your bedpost, is that what you want them to think about you afterwards? anonymous? come up with a better handle if you can.

    Like


  580. OK, screwed up the blockquotes. point made, i hope.

    Like


  581. @maurice

    I got your points, I’m sure she did too.

    Like


  582. […] Idiocy, Sexuality Via Robert Stacy McCain, I found this post by walking oxymoron and closeted cuckoldry fetishist Rod Dreher lamenting the pervasiveness of porn among teens: Recently I had dinner with a friend who […]

    Like


  583. I can attest that Rod Dreher is every bit the faggy douche personally that he seems to be on his blog. The “man” is a pox on “conservatism.” Fortunately his wife will eventually dump him (he’ll probably be a Buddhist or Amish by then) and he will disappear into the foie gras-munching sludge whence he emerged.

    Like


  584. […] his chances with women. But as we know the physical appearance of a man reveals little about the state of his spirit. A decent looking guy can harbor the sunken ship of a broken beta heart, and clearly Sodini was a […]

    Like


  585. I am late to this thorough take-down of Dreher. Good job.

    Like