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?
8 comments:
So sad, angry, jilted (and non-so-jilted) men are arguing in favor of total societal breakdown? Awesome. It's not enough that your immediate family is in crisis, mine should be, too. Thanks, guys. You're a lot of help.
By the way, an alpha male will make sure his "seed" succeed and thrive. Despite lots of mistakes on my part, ours are doing great and I didn't need to spread my "seed" all over the place to do it.
Hmm. Maybe there's a lesson in there.
That's the thing -- making-and-rearing babies is the very last thing that the sort of un-men who assert that it is men's nature to "spread their seed" want to do. Jim Bob Dugger has what, 19 kids -- with one woman; and he's a schmuck, a mere "beta", in the eyes of that sort of fool.
"angry, jilted ... men"
One: myself, I wouldn't use that language ... because that's exactly the sort of language and attitude that sinful/rebellious women use to de-legitimize him whenever a mere man has the audacity to criticize the sinful things women are prone to do.
Two: while the "gamer" un-men may be 'angry', by and large, I don't think they are 'jilted'. Their anger over feminism isn't becasue feminism is a satanic anti-human lie, which is bound to destroy society *because* it is a lie. Rather, their anger is because it's not working as promised -- they're not getting all the free nookie they were promised.
This is why I intentionally likened them to communism's "useful idiots". Just like that set of dupes, this set of dupes refuses to see that the "failure" which angers them is built into the assumptions.
For those curious, this is insanityBytes. She tweaked Vox once and got banned which tickled me but still accepts too many feminist propositions. Proceed with caution.
How can it be that living/behaving according to what is asserted to be the nature of men/women does not make men/women happy in the long run, but in fact, generally makes them miserable?
Well now Ilion, let me play devil's advocate for just a moment. Does sin, in the long run, make people happy? One doesn't have to spend much time around the criminal justice system to see that no, it does not. Yet the Bible says we have a sinful nature. Likewise, does it make children happy in the long run to eat ice cream as much as they can for 3 meals a day? Of course not, they quickly become ill and miserable. Yet it is quite in their nature to eat as much as ice cream as possible if given the opportunity.
It seems there was some confusion on what is nature here. There is a nature of what we computer geeks may call "optimum design" - in which case yes, it is in men & women's nature to marry but 1 of the other for life. There is also the nature of... let's call it "betting" nature. That is, say we were invisible angels going about the Earth to and fro. We come across a human which is a complete stranger, we know nothing about him or her. We see the human presented with a choice. If I ask you wager on the outcome of the human's choice, what would be the 'smart' or most likely outcome to wager on? This is generally seems to be the "nature" people on dalrock's blog is intending. If presented with an opportunity to mate with a random woman, men would probably take it. If presented with an opportunity to go with a richer, more-handsome-than-their-husband man, women would run off. You might also call it the "temptation nature" I guess.
A similar confusion seems to surround "what is good" in the discussion.
But Nate, it's *not* a child's nature-as-a-child "to eat as much as ice cream as possible if given the opportunity". My younger brother would have, I would not have.
"If presented with an opportunity to mate with a random woman, men would probably take it."
You don't mean 'mate', you mean 'fuck', and I wouldn't. Even when I was young-and-horny, the idea of fucking some random stranger was repulsive to me.
For pushing a century now, the sexual perverts who sit atop the dung-heap they have made of our culture have been working to brain-wash boys that what they really want out of life is having orgasms, that being a faithful and dutiful husband and father is "boring" and "for losers". But, dammit, no sooner do they get the current cohort generally brainwashed, but here comes a new cohort and they have to start all over again -- that is *why* they keep grooming the schoolchildren at younger and younger ages: if they can turn the children into sexual perverts before sex is even an issue in those children's lives, the goal of perverting all of them is easier to reach.
So, while many men would "take it", clearly, most men would not, even having been reared to believe that that is what will make them happy. Otherwise, those same men would be using prostitutes whenever they had the price of admission.
Even after a lifetime of brainwashing, most men still have to play mind-games on themselves ("my wife doesn't understand me, but Bambi does"; "we loooove each other"; etc) to make fornication appealing enough to engage in it.
"If presented with an opportunity to go with a richer, more-handsome-than-their-husband man, women would run off."
Similarly as with men, not so. To the extent (and it is a great extent) that modern-day "strong, independent" women are sluts, it's because that is what they have been reared to be -- because that is what modern men (in general) *want* them to be. That is, until they (the men) decide that they are "ready to settle down", and then they're pissed because no one had the forethought to set aside a few good women for when they were "ready".
Similarly as with men, even after a lifetime of brainwashing (and even give that in general women are more suseptible to such perceived social expectations than men are), most women still have to play mind-games on themselves ("my husband doesn't make me haaappy, but Bambo will"; "we loooove each other"; etc) to make fornication appealing enough to engage in it.
Speaking of my brother and me, I don't mean to imply that I never did something I knew my parents wouldn't want me to do. But I did far, far less than he did. It's not that I was so good and he was so bad; it's that we had different time preferences. I could weigh the desire to do 'X' right now against the sure knowledge that my parents would be angry with me if I did -- to say nothing of being disappointed in me (*) -- and it wasn't quite as appealing. My brother's calculus was different.
(*) and *that* may have been the deciding factor: I *hated* to disappoint my parents.
But Nate, it's *not* a child's nature-as-a-child "to eat as much as ice cream as possible if given the opportunity". My younger brother would have, I would not have.
But I did far, far less than he did. It's not that I was so good and he was so bad; it's that we had different time preferences.
Uh I'm sure. ;)
Anyway, I'm just pointing out their point of view. You're using nature in an absolutist view and their using it in an "odds on favorite" point of view (though some of the cognitive misers do break down and fall on an absolutist view). Just to say "it's 60/40% in favor that man/woman/child will do _" is not to deny that the 40% exists.
Regardless, it's about what CS Lewis pointed out most conflicts were about, conflicts over different definitions.
Again, let's go back to when the Bible says man has a sinful nature. Would you agree to that by your definition of "nature" or is the Bible using it in a different manner? Likewise, the Bible isn't saying that man will always choose sin all the time, every time - obviously it can't because then we'd all be dead by now from the rampant murder. But we're far from perfect too.
And that's not even getting into whatever definition of "good" there might be. Is hypergamy "good" or a corruptible fact of humanity? Likewise the heightened sexual drive of men. It can be good when within marriage and an entire brood is produced, less good when the man runs around and leaves deposits all over town.
You don't mean 'mate', you mean 'fuck', and I wouldn't. Even when I was young-and-horny, the idea of fucking some random stranger was repulsive to me.
No biology was my major before computers so I meant "mate" out of habit. There's complications added to human mating because there are no indicators of female fertility so even WITHOUT birth control not every sexual union produces offspring.
Anyway it would be interesting to compare your youthful testosterone levels to other guys since it's pretty much THE sex hormone and the more you have the more you seem ready to bed strangers.
No really, that's the words of a trans person:
Describing his experience with testosterone on This American Life, one trans man flat-out says "I felt like a monster." He completely stopped thinking about the random women he encountered as people, and a nice-looking one would turn his mind into a pornographic View-Master. That guy was on an irresponsibly high dose, but most trans men on testosterone agree that it increases libido and aggression, which can be a shocking revelation for someone who's spent their life chasing the estrogen dragon.
But again, that's on what is the use of the term "nature" and the blurry lines of the physical vs metaphysical realms.
"One: myself, I wouldn't use that language ... because that's exactly the sort of language and attitude that sinful/rebellious women use to de-legitimize him whenever a mere man has the audacity to criticize the sinful things women are prone to do.'
But you haven't heard how I describe their female counterparts yet! It's great!
;-)
But you haven't heard how I describe their female counterparts yet! It's great!
How long are you going to keep us in suspense about it, KT?
Hey Ilion, if you ever want to tangle with some leftists, hang out here sometime:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daffeythoughts/
(Dave's cool, like the only conservative Catholic on Patheos I think, don't pick fights with him.)
You can see demonstrations of the fun like in this post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daffeythoughts/2017/03/the-coming-storm-2.html
Post a Comment