I read Dalrock's blog from time to time, but have rarely commented there. Yesterday,
I commented in this thread ... and because it's a sad little echo chamber, populated by sad, pathetic PW'd un-men, some of them started shrieking like harpies about this comment --
hooked on cant (*): “I’d also be curious to see a successful marriage where the husband doesn’t somehow acknowledge and cope with his wife’s hypergamous nature.”(*) 'hooked on cant' is part of my comment on the post to which I was responding; the guy called himself 'God Is Laughing'
You poor, poor, “gamers” and your invented cant.
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to slutishness (of which you “gamers” approve … until it bites you in the ass).
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to the state of living your life as though life itself, and marriage, were a meat-market singles bar.
‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to the mindset of treating your “commitments” as disposable.
What ‘hypergamy’ *does* refer to is the near-universal desire-and-need of women who wish to rear children to marry men with more resources than they themselves have.
‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.
Someone calling himself 'feministhater' replied
‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.
It is female nature. It is not good. As a man’s nature is to spread his seed. The contention is that once you make a vow, you are to control your base nature and keep those vows. It’s about control. The practice of hypergamy, that is monkey branching, is not good, it is not right to leave a husband because the wife thinks she found a better deal.
This is nonsense, part of it is made up words for what is usually called ‘greed and selfishness’. You made a vow, stick to it, through thick and thin. That is what makes something good. The time for a woman trying to pick the best possible husband is when she is young, fertile and not married. Once the choice is made, bar very strict criteria, the vow is to be kept.
Destroying a marriage and thus a family because of the hypergamous nature of women is not a good thing. It is bad and evil. Get it through your heads, call them out on their shit or don’t complain. Stop making evil things good, this is a curse handed out by God for the disobedience of Eve. They are evil traits that are to be controlled through marriage.
And, since doubled-down BS really torqes me, I replied
me: “‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing.”
feminismlover: “It is female nature. It is not good.”
So, it’s “female nature” to seek to secure the best available father for her future children *before* she has them …*and* somehow that’s not a good thing. Gotcha!
feminismlover: “As a man’s nature is to spread his seed.”
That isn’t actually true; that is a lie promulgated by the sexually perverse men who invented feminism in the forst place as a means to use other men’s daughters as consequence-free sexual play-things.
feminismlover: “The practice of hypergamy, that is monkey branching, is not good, it is not right to leave a husband because the wife thinks she found a better deal.”
That is not what the term actually means. That’s the twisted cant you “gammer” fools have invented.
You people don’t *hate* feminism nor the so-called sexual revolution; what you hate is that *you* (you, personally, yourself) turned out to be the “useful idiot”.
I see that one of the fools accused me of being someone who goes by the handle 'InsanityBytes', and the particular fool replied to that assertion with --
It is actually Insanity bytes. As soon as the words ‘That isn’t actually true; that is a lie promulgated by the sexually perverse men who invented feminism in the forst place as a means to use other men’s daughters as consequence-free sexual play-things.’ all was revealed.It has always seemed to me that those who are so quick to accuse others of using sock-puppets do so because that's something they themselves would do.
Nice straw man, but you’re arguing against demons in your mind. Always have been. Sort out your own shit, don’t stay here. Go away.
my response to the above --
feminismlover: “… Go away.”
Translation: ‘Cause Heaven knows, the last thing this little echo chamber needs is someone able to speak truth.
the fool's response --
Oh yes, you are always here to speak the truth. You misrepresent, make up straw men and then pretend that you are telling the truth.
Fuck off, go away, no one wants or needs your bile here.
... and apparently Dalrock is afraid that I'll frighten the herd with some actual facts to counter their "game" cant.
So, here is what is I *would* say in response to the previous fool's foolish post --
me: "‘Hypergamy’ does not refer to [any of the various things for which you "gamer" fools use the word] ... What ‘hypergamy’ *does* refer to [is what is colloquially called "marrying up"] ... ‘Hypergamy’ is a *good* thing."
some pathetic PW'd fool: "It is female nature. It is not good."
The fool is insisting on misusing the term 'hypergamy' to refer to the tendency of modern "strong, independent" women -- to which they were trained up from birth in this sexually perverse society, perverted by the leftist variant called 'feminism' -- to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man.
One: even when the term 'hypergamy' is used correctly, it is not part of the nature of women to "marry up"; it's advantageous to do so, which is quite a different thing from being innate nature.
Two: if it were indeed a woman’s nature to never *commit* to one-and-only-one man, then why doesn't that really make women happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of women does not make women happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
some pathetic PW'd fool: "As a man’s nature is to spread his seed."
One: by "spread his seed", the fool does not mean fathering and rearing children; he means using women as sterile cum dumps.
Two: if it were indeed "a man’s nature is to spread his seed", then why doesn't that really make men happy? How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of men does not make men happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?