Saturday, October 27, 2012

Why Communism Killed the American Muse

This is an important one.  So I want you to pour yourself a martini, get a nice comfy couch and light up a cigar.  You'll be strapped in for a while on this one.

Though traffic has improved drastically when I started posting about the Manosphere, I occasionally get the question,

"Why did you switch from economics to The Manosphere/Feminism?"

or

"Why did you abandon economics for all this Manosphere stuff?"

And the answer is simple.

I haven't. 

While a higher percentage of my posts could be deemed "Manosphere" the reality is that economics and The Manosphere (or the fight against feminism) are actually one and the same.  And not only are they one and the same, I contend the most cutting-edge, evolutionary developments in economics are not in central banking, nor international finance, nor the demise of fiat currency.  The furthest, most deepest front lines of this economic war between communism and freedom is where The Manosphere and feminism are duking it out.

Right off the bat it is not obvious how battling feminism is related, let alone, part of economics, let alone "the cutting-edge" of economics.  And in all intellectual honesty it wasn't until I sat down to figure out this post did I realize how they are indeed one and the same.  But what originally alluded me to think the two were related was the fact my "transition" from economics to "Manosphere" was very natural.  So natural, I didn't even realize it was happening.  So natural my readers didn't know it was happening.  All of the sudden my blog, as well as others, were writing about both economics and the Manosphere, suggesting the two were at minimum VERY closely related and tied together, at least philosophically.

So what makes them the same?  Well why don't you take a big swig of your highly alcoholic drink, take a seat and be prepared to be floored as I lay down some serious "Super Awesome Economic Genius" (TM).

First, we have to ask ourselves what is the most important thing in life to humans?  Some will say riches, some will say wealth, some will say health, but those are all wrong answers.  The correct answer is "other humans."  The reason why is that out of EVERYTHING on this planet, humans are the most interesting, entertaining, dynamic and intellectual things we'll ever run into.

For example, have the most advanced XBox video gaming system out there. It is still finite.  It is still non-sentient.  It cannot think, it cannot challenge you, and cannot engage you beyond what it is programmed to do.  It is limited.  The only reason it CAN challenge you (within the confines of what it's programmed to) is because OTHER HUMANS programmed it that way.  Furthermore, what do most people with video games do to maximize their fun?  They go online and PLAY AGAINST OTHER HUMANS, suggesting it is human interaction, not a pre-programmed pixelated campaign to kill Nazi's or zombies that provides genuine stimulation to people.

Another example - when do you cry?  Chances are when you ding your car or sell your boat, etc., you don't cry.  But when a family member or a loved one dies, you cry.  Why?  Because a human is the only thing you can really love, as well as love you back.  You could even make the same case for pets in that pets, though not as advanced as humans, have some of the same characteristics.  They are not finite, they are not programmed, dogs certainly have personalities, they are dynamic (meaning they don't do the same thing over and over again like a robot), and you can interact with them.  A Ferrari, you can't.

In other words, have all the things you want.  Super computers, Ferrari's, an awesome career, you name it, there is nothing more advanced and engaging that another human being.  It's what we're programmed to respond to, it's what we're programmed to be intellectually stimulated by, other humans are the most important thing in our lives.

Second, since human beings are the most important things in our lives, which ones mean the most to us?  Of course we don't PERSONALLY KNOW every one of the 6 billion humans on the planet, but the ones that are important to us fall into three categories - family, friends and loved ones.

It is here we must discern between men and women because, after all, we are trying to tie economics to the MANosphere.  Additionally, we have to make some assumptions that are not going to apply to every man in the world, but will hold in general.  Specifically, we must discern the order or hierarchy in which the average man values the above three - family, friends and loved ones. 

In general, the average man is going to love

His wife first.  Sometimes TIED with his children for first, which means HIS FAMILY comes first.
His children second
And parental-extented family TIED with friends for third.

This doesn't mean he wouldn't lay his life down for his friends.  This doesn't mean he would abandon his friends once he found a woman (though that does happen).  This is just ordering these for the sake of intellectual discussion.

Regardless, the point is the single most important thing in a man's life is his wife and children aka HIS FAMILY (not his parents, cousins, siblings, aunts, etc.)

Third, since a man's wife and children are the most important things in life for him, how does a man go about getting a family?  He has to attract a woman to become his wife.  And how does he do that?

He goes out, kicks ass and takes names.

The "kicking ass" and "taking names" primarily manifesting itself in the form of economic production.

This means he goes to school, learns a trade, stays in shape, develops a personality, develops hobbies, invents, creates, innovates, invests, enriches himself and does everything within his power to increase his marketability to attract a woman.  In short he becomes the most powerful economically productive unit in all of society.

However, it doesn't stop there.  It's not like he's running a marathon, passes the finish line and then quits once he attracts a mate.  He must keep going and continue being the powerful economic production unit he is because chances are there will be little kinder that need taking care of. 

So in short, the majority of economic production in this economy is incented and prompted by a man's strong psychological and instinctual desire to compete for a woman, secure a mate and then start and maintain a family, resulting in an economic model that looks like this:























However, there are some significant ancillary benefits to having effectively every man in the country working this hard, being this creative and being this productive.  Namely pure economic dominance for the US.  With all men engaged in the economy, working their best, trying their best, uninhibited by government regulation, taxation or politics, there was no doubt which country was the #1 economic power in the world. Additionally, in being the #1 economic power in the world, the US could afford not just the largest,but the most advanced military in the world ensuring our safety.  So while the above model is on the micro-economic level, the macro-economic model looks like this:



































Now here is where it gets interesting.

Let's just say, "hypothetically" you are an enemy of the United States (or any free and successful country). You are a communist psy-ops specialist in the Soviet Union.  Or heck, just a communist ideologue from the Frasier School that wants to ruin the US.  Whatever your origins, you are a communist that wants to destroy the US.  You envy its economic wealth, you envy it's economic production, you hate how it's dominant and #1, and it really grinds your gears they did it by letting people be free and do what they want.  You know you can't take on the US militarily, so how do you bring about its demise efficiently, effectively and cheaply?

Well if you look at the two charts you'll see two bottlenecks or weak spots than can bring the whole thing down.

You target the wife/women or the family.  PREFERABLY the wife/women because that's the first bottleneck before a family is created.

And now your are starting to see why feminism, The Manosphere and economics are related.  Since the majority of this country's (an any other free country's) economic production is based on a man's desire to live a happy life by getting married and (sometimes) having children, if you can destroy the quality and caliber of women, let alone the incentive to get married or have children, you can destroy the economic productive capacity of the United States, and thus the country itself. Thus, you see that feminism really isn't about "helping women."  It is nothing more than an thinly veiled economic and political attack against the US, freedom and capitalism.  This is why I call it "Killing the American Muse."

I didn't know what a "muse" was, until I read this Sinfest comic and looked it up.  A muse is (in societal terms) a woman that instills creativity, innovation and determination in a man.  ie-any babe that stirs our souls and we think might be marriage material.  You see this all the time where if a hot babe walks by men suck in their guys, puff out their chests and do whatever they can to impress her.  However, to be a true muse you must not just be good-looking, but also inspire the man, incentive him to do great things, work hard, etc., which requires you are nice, kind, witty, charming, and supportive.  The qualities and characteristics of a woman that makes her a good wife, creating the saying "behind every successful man there is a woman."

Of course, if you look at what feminism has done and intends to do to our women, you can see it is in COMPLETE opposition to these qualities and traits. You are not supposed to support the man.  You are not to help him out.  He is the enemy.  He is your oppressor, you are not a team.  You will co-lead. He will compromise.  You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend!  You will have a career, ef the family and ef him, you can have it all, test-tube babies, turkey baster babies, career comes first, I'm a cougar, I can date younger, EPL, Sex and the City, 40 is the new 25, I'm a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl.  Vote for higher taxes, men should pay more, we're oppressed, the wage gap, evil patriarchy, free day care, free health care, free education, Obama's pecks, won't somebody please think of the children, I have my masters, where's my cushy 9 months a year government job?  Big is beautiful, you're so shallow for liking skinny girls, you should love me for me, shame on you for liking that type of girl, we're going to shove fat acceptance down your throats.

Well how the hell is THAT kind of muse going to instill ANYTHING in a guy but sheer disgust?

Simple, it isn't.  Feminism never intended to "improve" the American Muse.  Feminism is nothing more than a cover for communists to destroy it and thus destroy your incentive to produce.

The question is, though, are they succeeding?  And the answer is sadly yes.

In corrupting and destroying the quality and caliber of the average American woman, these veritable communists have completely disincentived men from participating in getting married, creating families and forming careers.  Men are getting married much later, and some, not at all because of the various legal and financial risks involved.  Men are having less children not just because they can't afford it in today's economic times, but BOTH parents MUST have careers!  Children be damned.  Worse though, (for the rest of society anyway) is that men are completely abandoning their traditional male roles and checking out of society altogether.  Not that they aren't dating.  Not that they aren't working, but they're not "manning up" as so many bewildered western women would like them to.  They are realizing just how little money it takes to support one man and choosing the path of least resistance.  They are living at home, not going to school, not bothering working hard, not trying their best, not inventing vaccines, not becoming doctors and not aiming to "achieve something greater."  They are making just enough money to get by, live their lives, smoke some cigars, drive some motorcycles, service their needs and then die.  Thus, the new micro-economy is looking like this:























Pay particular note to several items in the new economic model.

1.  The amount of green (economic production) is a lot less.  This is in part because the guy no longer has any calling to be a husband or a father.  That job has been replaced by the government.  The guy no longer has anything to do with the "mom" or the "children" and therefore only needs to produce the amount of economic production that is necessary to support himself.

2.  Also note the significant amount of "faux" economic production.  Namely the welfare spending of the government and the "make work government jobs" that are disproportionately filled by women.  Also, notice such an economy of nothing but teachers, social workers, therapists, counselors, etc. is unsustainable, thereby requiring additional financing by the Chinese (again, not real economic production).

3.  Notice the disconnect from the guy.  The guy is standing alone, separate from the upper half.  This means he is not only alienated from the economy, but also socially alienated.  He has no family, he has no children, and if he does, thanks to divorce chances are he is more or less removed from that as well.  He may as well be removed from this entire economy and country, and this shows in more and more men looking overseas for not just jobs, but families and lives.

4.  I didn't draw it, but the upper half of the economy will inevitably demand the "guys" below pay more in taxes to support the government-daddy-hubby matrix.  More schools, more health care, free day care, etc. etc., just look at what the feminists and communists are clamoring for and you'll see.  Additionally, this only provides further incentive for the guys below to work less, if not, collect a government check themselves, if not consider green pastures in other economies.

Ultimately though, the above model results in something that is loathed by BOTH ardent feminists and religious conservative types - the HATED Peter Pan Syndrome Man or "Manchild."



With their primary incentive (women) to engage in economic production eliminated why should they?  Without a potential future wife, let alone children, they can stay at home and bang on their drums all day because the average man needs a mere fraction of the money to survive and support himself than the average woman does.  Oddly enough, men seem to be OK with this.  It's other people that are having the problems.

The feminists/communists are pissed because these naive men were supposed to keep on working to pay the taxes to support their socialist utopia (though I doubt most feminists think that much about budgetary economics and fiscal policy).

Religious types are angry because these men aren't "manning up" and creating more Christians/Muslims/Jews/Etc.

Women are angry because "why can't I find a maaaaaan?"  And "where have all the good men gone!?  Why, I have my triple masters in social work and I'm an independent strong woman!  You know, that's what it is!  Men are sexist pigs who are just intimidated by a strong, independent woman like me!  You probably want one of those hot, long legged, big boobed women!  Well, you know what, you're shallow!  If you don't like me and my muffin top, then you're not good enough for me!"

Meanwhile today's marrying-age man (most likely VERY aware of the divorce his father went through in the 80's/90's) is noticing some of the benefits of bachelorhood, XBox and scotch.

Regardless, the larger point is not the socio-romantic consequences of the "Man Child" or "Peter Pan Syndrome."  It's the economic consequences.  Communists, poorly dressed as feminists, have taken the one thing that truly matters and has given men reason to live throughout history away from them- a wife, and consequently a family.  Without that incentive men have no reason to work hard, innovate, create or excel except for themselves.  Some, yes, will go onto try hard and create riches for themselves, but most others will merely create enough economic production to "get by" pursuing leisure over labor (besides, with this economy, like they have a choice).  This wreaks havoc on the economy in that by taking out that one bottleneck (women) feminists have effectively sent the US economic engine into a coma, producing a mere fraction of what it's capable of doing.

Ergo, we here in the Manosphere aren't "bashing women" because it's a "he-man woman's hater club."  We aren't here because we find the battle of the sexes interesting.  And we aren't here because we're whining.  We're here for economic purposes.  We are identifying, warning people about, and assailing the single largest economic threat to not just this economy and other free-market economies, but to freedom across the globe.  Feminism is NOT about women, it is a Trojan Horse for communism.  And all the accusations in the world of us being "sexist" or "misogynist" will never stop us from pointing that out and exposing feminism for the evil it truly is.

Hey, did you like this post?  Then go buy something (that you have to buy anyway) on Amazon.com.  The Captain gets a commish and it keeps him from having to work a real job in banking, and keeps him writing good stuff like this.  Besides, it pisses off all his previous banker employers that he's successful and they're stuck dealing with problem loans and collecting collateral.

58 comments:

Pat Sullivan said...

A very interesting piece. And yes I agree, with most of your points.

This also helped explain what I have seen, regarding younger men`s behavior. On a recent out of town day trip, I had my son with me. I agreed to spend an hour at a local skate board park, so he could have some fun. There were lots of kids, and bunch of guys in their mid/early twenties. I asked myself what sort of 23 year old, goes to a skate board park? I did not have an answer. It was shock to my eyes.
These guys were living the life you are describing.
Thanks for the insight.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if you have studied the history of this at all, but you are absolutely correct. The Russian communists were the first ones to get into feminism in a big way in the 1920's. They felt that destroying the family was an important step in creating a utopian communist society. They did this by birth control/abortion/daycare. I think they eventually backed off because it had exactly the effects you are talking about here. If you are interested in studying this more look into what I refer to. - minuteman

BAJ said...

Excellent post, Captain! I actually am a married man. I made sure to NOT marry an American woman. I married a native Asian woman and I must say I am happy!

Rick said...

Another winning post by the Captain. I've been educating my two adult sons (23 & 26) about this reality ever since I discovered the manosphere a couple of years ago. They humor me, but I'm pretty sure the younger one will marry if/when he gets a chance.

I've been encouraging them to minimize their production and live for themselves. As you stated, in this economy that is almost a given anyway.

I even gave my son-in-law the same advice before he married my liberal feminist daughter. Apparently she was too powerful for him, because he married her anyway.

Rick said...

Another winning post by the Captain. I've been educating my two adult sons (23 & 26) about this reality ever since I discovered the manosphere a couple of years ago. They humor me, but I'm pretty sure the younger one will marry if/when he gets a chance.

I've been encouraging them to minimize their production and live for themselves. As you stated, in this economy that is almost a given anyway.

I even gave my son-in-law the same advice before he married my liberal feminist daughter. Apparently she was too powerful for him, because he married her anyway.

Take The Red Pill said...

"Women are angry because "why can't I find a maaaaaan?" And "where have all the good men gone!? Why, I have my triple masters in social work and I'm an independent strong woman! You know, that's what it is! Men are sexist pigs who are just intimidated by a strong, independent woman like me! You probably want one of those hot, long legged, big boobed women! Well, you know what, you're shallow! If you don't like me and my muffin top, then you're not good enough for me!""

Captain, this is a great post, but you forgot to add "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..." to the end of her tirade. No feminist tirade is complete without it.

Dave said...

Summary: Feminism turns women into whores and men into bums.

Invictus III said...

Great post man. You brought everything together perfectly. We are indeed witnessing the decline of the greatest nation that ever existed and the reasons are staring us right in the face. I'm not sure there's really any way to reverse it but I plan on enjoying the ride by banging loose women, traveling abroad and building my own personal wealth.

Rick said...

Feminism is the reason why women can't find a maaaaaaan. It's the cause of so many guys today that have been raised by single mothers as the the pic accurately shows. Women have no one to blame but themselves. Feminism is a bastard spawm of Marxism, and Marxism ruins everything it touches. Again, the modern American woman is the muse of cultural Marxism.

jso said...

the key thing is we would all still be following the old path of producing, consuming, and raising a family if feminism hadn't imploded the social contract. I certainly had the desire to have a typical american family life, but as I came of age I saw that it would be impossible without radically changing who I was as a person. I went my own way without knowing anything about game theory or evopsych, and just refused to participate in the massive stump grinder that modern society is. so women have no chance to shame me by claiming that I am some kind of "manchild" or "peter pan" for not associating with their diseased and wretched gender.

this is why I believe we will see the death of feminism in my lifetime. the question is, will there still be a functioning civilization afterwards? I have no idea, but I hope humanity can get it's act together before it comes to that.

Grit said...

Bwahahaha Pat Sullivan. Im 24 and just bought a longboard.

But in all seriousness, how do we artificially yank the clutch and stall feminist support?

According to their arguments, if you hate feminism you indirectly hate american women. If you hate men who support feminism, you indirectly hate american women. If you hate the governments policies, you indirectly hate american women.

So I can't yet see an artificial stall. I can see a natural stall- a fiscal cliff that causes desperation which is right back to the captains point of this article.

Women are behind the wheel of society with an iphone in one hand, mascara and a happy meal in the other.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately many of these guys get helped along by 'supportive' moms.

A friend's son who is 28 years old, has always lived with her (she is divorced), pays little in the way of household expenses, and is 'self-employed' but only earns enough to pay for his personal needs - just bought a new car. And his Mom is so thrilled for him - she plastered the car all over her Facebook page congratulating him on his 'success'.

All I see is an overgrown manchild, who works on a few technology projects during the year, but is basically a gamer, has never had a girlfriend and lives in her basement. But both of them seems to be happy. Her excuse for his lack of ability to leave the home nest is because housing is so expensive in our community - she is right - housing is expensive if you are only earning about $1,000 a month!!!!!

COOLSTUD said...

DAMN YOU SPOKE THE TRUTH

Herr Wilson said...

Great post, Cappy.

It seems to me that the feminist/socialist/environmentalist structure of modern Western society can only be maintained through the media and higher education. Take away media and higher education and our civilization would in all likelihood self-correct.

We are at a point where Western society is on the brink, but so are the media and higher education. The question is: which disintegrates first?

coolstud said...

equal pay for equal work. huge bullshit. Ill say to any feminist, if that were true. the player from the bench will get paid the same money as the superstar

Anonymous said...

This is actually one of your better posts

Anonymous said...

I'm 31, I have a full time well paying career, my own apartment, a new car paid off in cash.

Damned if I can find a woman who has any interest in me.

Maybe i should give it all up, move into my parents basement get some tattoos and and get a rap sheet filled up by committing some felonies.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:14

That's kind of the point. The young man has no reason to leave his mother's house because he has no incentive in the form of good women. If my choice is living an easy life and struggling to support a good woman, I'll take the good woman. If my choice is Halo or a skank....I don't need to see a doctor after Halo.

Anonymous said...

According to their arguments, if you hate feminism you indirectly hate american women. If you hate men who support feminism, you indirectly hate american women. If you hate the governments policies, you indirectly hate american women.

Your man-fu is weak. Cut out the middle (wo)man and just go ahead and hate them directly. lollzzllzollozz

ray said...

for "ecomonics" to work, it can't be complex dense academic theory by pretentious overpaid phakes, but common-sense social application -- like this post

the word "economic" doesnt just denote money, but brevity, directness, and thrift

the blog's recent trend is vibrant b/c antifeminist economics is the only possible future for the discipline

Anonymous said...

"Living with mom" will become the new normal because there is NO NEED FOR NEW HOUSES. Demographics, fools. New houses being built are for the very wealthy, not for the extreme minority of poor young Leave it to Beaver imitators. That way of life is sadly in the past.

You might get a decent house in Utah or Idaho or some other culturally conservative place that supports it. That's about it.

Of all manchild/Peter Pan problems, the basement phenomenon is the least of all to worry about. It arguably would happen anyway, without the feminism.

It's funny that not just in the US, but in Europe, and in Asia as well, that housing always bubbles just before the demographic wall hits. Housing is the slut/cougar sector of the transitioning modern economy.

Anonymous said...

I've actually been working on a hypothesis like this for a while.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely brilliant post, should go into a 'Manosphere Hall-of-Fame' collection if there is such a thing.

Herb Nowell said...

If my choice is living an easy life and struggling to support a good woman, I'll take the good woman. If my choice is Halo or a skank....I don't need to see a doctor after Halo.

I think there is a pattern that is even more destructive.

The 80/20 rule is very true in software and, I suspect, most engineering. The last 20% of the project takes 80% of the work but it's that last 20% that transitions something from "works for me" to "works for others".

How many men are writing software, working on cars, building robots, and writing music to the 80% point then skipping the bulk of the effort that would make it useful not just for them but for everyone.

That's what we're really losing in so many MGTOW. When there is less reward for making something worthwhile and even what reward you get has little use why bother.

The really bad part is it becomes a feedback loop. Imagine an economy with 100 producers going the last part to make their creations useful to everyone. Bob, producer 100, realizes all his hard work won't get him the family he wanted so he gives up.

Meanwhile, Joe was upset that he could get the family but he was looking forward to getting Bob's widget. Now that Bob isn't coming out with widgets anymore Joe says "what's the point" and quits.

Between them Skip, Tim, and Mike all wanted a mix of family, Bob's widget, and Joe's thing. Well, their SOL so they drop out.

It's called a positive feedback loop, it's usually something to avoid.

Interestingly, the feminist feel good world is all about providing positive feedback only as they are happy to brag.

Anonymous said...

The other bottleneck in the system that liberals are going after hard is the elimination of real jobs for men. For example-blocking Keystone Pipeline-war on Coal-against Fracking etc.
They have largely wrecked the women-which is your main thesis-then this huge block of liberal women is reflexively against "Real" production in the economy.

Peacemaker said...

Phenomenal post. Cultural marxism FTL

Anonymous said...

Which all leads me to think, you know, for a man, Islam is not such a horrible thing. Hmmmmmm.

sth_txs said...

Correction: Summary: Feminism turns women into whores and men into bums.

Replace Feminism with socialism.

Over the years, women seem the most ignorant of economics.

I explain to them why work hard when the local, state, and federal government loots 5 months or more of your labor? God forbid if you live in a state with an income tax.

Over the years, I've been told 'I'm selfish' to not want to pay that or I should find 'a better paying job.' Right (eyeroll). Yeah, make 'more money' so I can support more corporate and welfare parasites. And it makes no difference whether you vote Democrat or Republican.

August said...

The division of labor begins at home.
Thus the transition from economics to manosphere isn't surprising; it's inevitable.
If they destroy the very root of economics, there isn't much of a point to hanging around in its branches.
I haven't seen many economists, even Austrian ones, make the proper conclusions to this one yet.

Matt said...

This is great analysis and building the case from the ground up. I'd love to see you do a follow-up post on this marital "incentive decline" negative feedback loop against the decline in value of the dollar. I imagine you may have to include the economic destruction and loss of productive men in the wars of the last 100 years as well, to truly show the big picture of destroying men/men's incentives to be economically productive. The only problem with your analysis may be that this collapse has been an intentional undertaking by the communists - if you look at China, they are very concerned with their demographics problems and are trying to address them - so if Chinese commies understand that men need a family to be good little workers for the state, I dont see why commies in the us wouldn't understand this as well. Stupidity could be to blame, I guess.

Mark said...

Great post. Your current U.S. economy model looks accurate. I don't understand, though, why so many women don't see it isn't sustainable. I think maybe they just block it out of their minds and try not to think about it. I notice they never try to respond to manosphere posts like this in the comments section. You don't see any here on this post, right? They probably avoid even reading things like this. They just go on pretending to themselves that guys will keep on working hard without any of the incentives that caused them to work hard in earlier eras.

kate said...

First off let me say I love your blog, captain. Has really helped in my arguments with liberals. This post is one of your best, and although I acknowledge the suffering that has been inflicted on men by feminism, I honestly think it is women who are the real losers in this game. Men are more capable of finding fulfillment outside of the home and family through their careers, friends etc. Women, despite what the feminists tell us, very rarely feel fulfilled without children and a family. Ie, men can have their cake and eat it too. Woman cannot. Instead of being trained to be good wives, mothers, and how to contribute to society in any way that is real and lasting, we are told that we can do it all and have fun while doing it. Then, by the time most women reach their thirties and forties they are sad and lonely and left wondering where the hell they went wrong. After all, they only did what everyone told them they should do.

Things are even worse for the few of us women who hold traditional values (is 1% of the population too generous of an estimate?) I was lucky enough to be raised in a very traditional branch of Christianity and to have a truly wonderful, anti-feminist mother. I never needed to take the red pill because I was born with it. Yet women like me, along with all you red-pill men, must suffer thanks to something we never created nor wanted. You are certainly justified in making fun of the American Woman's slogan "there are no good men," but I challenge you to find a man who doesn't fall into the category of man-woman-amoeba-creature or alpha-male-player. Neither type makes and good husband or father, and I am not sure I have EVER met a man in my age group who doesn't fall into one of the two categories. I am only 21, but I have almost given up hope of ever finding a husband and having children. Sure, I could no doubt find some guy willing to knock me up, but I am one of those weirdos who wants the best for their children and thinks "the best" includes having a mother and a father. Sure, there are plenty of "nice" men, plenty of "sweet" men too... but plenty of "good" men? I am not so sure. Furthermore, most of the sweet/nice men I have dated thought I was absolutely nuts when they realized how traditional I actually am.

What options are available for traditional women who never find a traditional man? Neither my morals nor my pride will allow me to become a washed-up slut like most American women. What is left is either spinsterhood or the convent.

Anyways, I apologize if this comes across as very woe is me. Its not attractive, I know. I guess the point I am trying to make is this: Feminism, making everyone's lives miserable since 1960!

Phil Galt said...

Cappy said "Well how the hell is THAT kind of muse going to instill ANYTHING in a guy but sheer disgust?"

You are missing the motivation that sheer disgust can provide. I'm thinking a giant billboard that says "NO FAT CHICKS!".

Colton said...

Something hit me reading this, but... isn't the problem made even worse by the fact that these men are more likely to work jobs for cash or barter, and pay 0 taxes on their economic production?
It seems like the economy will just spiral faster.. time to enjoy the decline! What little is left of it.

Anonymous said...

From Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto:

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. ...

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social....

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting,...


Anyone who has not read the Communist Manifesto should make the effort to do so. It is readily available in many forms and for free. It takes the mystery out of much of what the left pushes.

The promotion of selfishness, narcissism, feminism, homosexuality and abortion has resulted in a birth rate which cannot maintain the size of Western populations. In an effort to prop up their populations, the political classes have promoted immigration as a solution instead of addressing the destructive cultural roots of the population decline. The big joke is that the new immigrants have no allegiance to either communism or modern notions of political pluralism and so, even if communists get their wish of destroying existing Western societies, the communists and their utopian dreams will be annihilated along with everyone and everything else.

kate said...

I had a lovely, long post but I accidentally deleted it. Typical chick move ha. Anyways, first off let me say I love your blog. Probably my favorite manosphere/political blog, and this post is one of your best. I have to say though, while I realize that feminism has caused terrible suffering amongst men, I think the real losers in this game are the women. Ultimately, many men can be happy without a wife a children, but I think most women need children and a family in order to be fulfilled. In other words, men can have their cake and eat it too. Women, despite what feminists tell us, cannot. A woman cannot slut around without getting hurt, and we cannot be both sluts and good wives/mothers. The majority of American women will wake up one day when they are forty and wonder what the hell happened- after all, they only did what everyone told them they should do.

Perhaps I am biased, but I think it is the few of us young, unmarried, traditional women who have been dealt the worst hand. We, along with all you red-pill men, are dealing with the consequences of something we never created nor wanted. Even worse, we know our fate. We know that women need men, but their is little we can do to stop the feminist onslaught, and very VERY few men whom we can rely on to help guide us through it. While you are certainly justified in poking fun at the American Woman's slogan "There are no good men," I challenge you to find a man who isn't some sort of man-woman-amoeba-creature or an alpha-male-player. Neither make good husbands for traditional gals. I am only 21, but like many men here I have almost given up hope of ever finding a suitable spouse. Most of the men I date find my traditional values strange and old fashioned at best, insane at worst. Sure I can develop my career, chase my dreams and travel, but thats not going to stop the ache I get inside whenever I see a lovely little boy or girl- especially when I know that all I really wanted all along was beautiful children of my own and a strong man to stand behind.

I apologize if this sounds very woe is me. I didn't intend it to. I guess the point I wanted to make is just this: Feminism makes things worse for EVERYONE.

Anonymous said...

There's an ad on CL by a woman seeking a house in exchange for sex. That what women think of men; spread those legs and men just melt. Problem is fembots the men you do sex up for the most part ARE BROKE LOSERS. And men who do have a house/room that could be rented out would rather have money. Why would any man sit around a deal with that just for sex? That's easy to find in case you don't know.

You're not independent. MANY OF YOU GET TO THE POINT OF BEING DEPENDENT ON MEN STILL WANTING SEX FROM YOU just to get by. Too bad that goes away at a certain point. Too bad I don't give a damn.

Factory said...

"I have to say though, while I realize that feminism has caused terrible suffering amongst men, I think the real losers in this game are the women. Ultimately, many men can be happy without a wife a children, but I think most women need children and a family in order to be fulfilled. In other words, men can have their cake and eat it too. Women, despite what feminists tell us, cannot....blah blah blah"

World Hit by Asteroid - Women and Children Hardest Hit!

Poor widdle victim...

tell me, why the Hell should men give shit one what happens to you, and the society that has consistently screwed men over their entire lives?

What have YOU done for US lately?

kate said...

@Factory. I think you missed the part where I said feminism is screwing everyone over-men and women? All I was trying to say is that yes, feminism has destroyed many men's lives, but ultimately it will destroy more women's lives because men DON"T NEED WOMEN but women DO need men. I am not saying you should feel bad for women, Im saying that women deserve what is inevitably coming to us when feminism eventually turns all women into men and all men into women.

"What have YOU done for US lately?"
ummm, huh? Are you saying you want more women to take up men's rights? You want them to pay the bills?

Matt Strictland said...

Pat, skateboarding is not just as kids thing these days. Its a fun kind of exercise for young. Even a few Gen X do it (not me though) It also beats the hell out of a lot of the more traditional manly activities, ,making your boss richer, drinking, smoking.

if there is one upside to the whole situation, the fact that young men realize they are only going to be young once and slaving away for a system that was making a lot of people (yes men too) unhappy is stupid. Better to enjoy life.

The key is going to be figuring out a way that that 20 something can afford to marry (socially and economically) and still find a way to enjoy the skate park at the same time.

Now to the good Captain I agree with you for the most part with a few caveats,

The essence of you post could be described as "incentives matter to men and without a family creation incentive, they won't participate as much and this cripples growth"

Well yes but its more complex

the reason I eschew capitalism as well as communism is simple both lead to the same thing, oligarchy.

The same mind frame, competition for status that drives ordinary men to excel as husbands and fathers can become pathological in the elite and they end up making choices that render things unstable.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

though heavily biased is on the correct track. My take on this is in essence, for Joe 6 Pack there is "enough" and need for being though well thought of controls the way they act to get more.

For much of the elite, the only check is "not getting caught" and if they can subvert the system so much the better. Others be damned, I've got mine.

The fact is, to be Joe Six Pack requires a measure of stability, it does take time and resources to be a husband and father and between technology (a mass amount of good jobs for regular folks are gone for good) and the people in charge, its getting to be fundamentally too difficult to be Joe 6 Pack.

Most people are finding it harder and harder and between this and feminism, you get what we have here.

Oh and as a foot note, I am in favor of what I consider economic conservatism a market system with strict neutrality, closed borders, controlled foreign trade and distributionism with a smidge of social democracy (not much its corrosive)

This produces a series of incentives that make being between lower middle to lower upper economic class pretty easy but nigh impossible to get much higher or lower which is as it should be.


If you can get rid of feminism, you can combine this with family incentives and you have system that encourages broad wealth creation, family formation and reduces the money seeking rentiers.

Anonymous said...

Regarding how the productive finance the unproductive...

Anonymous said...

40 comments. Hot damn. This is like having sex with a Japanese hooker.

Martian Bachelor said...

Welcome to the study of the Economy of Eros, CC, where women are "The 1%", thanks to feminism.

That economy is in even worse shape than the economy of money (way to go, grrrls!), and no doubt the latter depends on the former.

Dave's correct: the ethic of the whore is the same as the communist -- from each according to his ability to pay.

Feminism holds to the one-way idea that men, collectively, have a responsibility for the welfare of all women, but that women as a group have no responsibility for the welfare of all men. Thus, women under feminism judge their own value based on how little they do for men. Bums are the inevitable result.

It also doesn't help that boys are now growing up in female dominated collectives, socially controlled lab experiments where the only 'perfect color' is lavender. At least as many ne'er-do-wells and slackers and screw-ups are created as deliberately make the choice to man down.

"The condition of women will improve even more? Are we going to get better quality women?
- Kirin Saga (c.1999)

realiticzech said...

Kate, you come here looking for sympathy, while making comments like this:
"I challenge you to find a man who doesn't fall into the category of man-woman-amoeba-creature or alpha-male-player. Neither type makes and good husband or father"
And they say women are the socially skilled ones.

Great post, Cap'n. Hall of fame quality.

ukFred said...

@Kate

I sympathise with you in your search for a good man. I do not however simply blame the legal system and politics. There has been over the last 40 years that I can remember a movement to avoid every hurt and deflect the consequences of every bad decision with the effect that often, our younger people, up to say the age of 30 often do not know how to consider the consequences of their decisions, as shown in the trials of the people involved in rioting in the UK last year.

I also blame the church for trying to get people to be nice rather than good. The attitude that it is more important that you do not upset someone over their beliefs than to challenge them before they get out of hand is clearly seen in the UK when one reviews statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia Law and the failure of the police to act over the sexual abuse of vulnerable girls by gangs of predominantly muslim men.

@Cappy
Are you wise to have your blog registered in the UK? Do you not wonder when much of what you have to say will be considered hate speech and prosecuted in the courts? There may be problems in the US, but I still think their legal system is fairer than the UK's.

CL said...

This needs to go on a required reading of the manosphere list. Brilliantly done!

allie said...

So interesting & enlightening to read. This isn't hate speech, it's just reality.

Anonymous said...

All can be summed up with the following: Going Galt

Who is John Galt?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gauthijm said...

Superb article
explains a lot

Now that Im 50, I undrstand what I ddi wrong; the valuable division of labor between a man and a woman has been broken, with taxes now sky high to pay for Government as surrogate sugar daddy

Government jobs = make work has never been so true

Kate, you seem like my kind of gal, may your blogspot profile public and I can mail you once in a while, and shoot the breeze with you

Youre a breath of fresh air; I am neither peter pan, nor man-child, hipster or metrosexual moron.

Just a normal guy, struggling to understand what the world has become.

I am looking forward to;

* my 2nd divorce being finalized. yep I fell for the BS not once, but twice. I never said I was perfect, far from it.

* downsizing my crap so I can live on whats left of my 1.4 million after my divorce; good news is, shell have to back off from some of my savings, or I go after HER goverment pension. should be fun.

--> sell 2nd car, sell house, keep condo: check

* Built a wall around whats left so
I can live quite comfortably on my medium but manageable needs. Possibly work 4-5 years more of a job I hate, but which nets me 160,000 a year of self employed income...

* Have cappy Cap as my background desktop(lol) so I can hit my head with good advice before I do number 3 and be truly olympic class stupid

Finally, either find a religious, traditional woman, once that values family values and split roles; no feminist, marxist, democrat needs to apply, it wont work
OR
travel a lot in asia or eastern europe/russia and , with open eyes, find a mate there (after taking proper precautions, of course) that fulfills also condition 1 above.

I think, in 95% of teh cases, feminism has ruined almost, almost every woman here into harridans...

Just my FYI, hope that wa snot too personal, but cappy, this article was PRICELESS

Jean

gauthijm said...

Superb article
explains a lot

Now that Im 50, I undrstand what I ddi wrong; the valuable division of labor between a man and a woman has been broken, with taxes now sky high to pay for Government as surrogate sugar daddy

Government jobs = make work has never been so true

Kate, you seem like my kind of gal, may your blogspot profile public and I can mail you once in a while, and shoot the breeze with you

Youre a breath of fresh air; I am neither peter pan, nor man-child, hipster or metrosexual moron.

Just a normal guy, struggling to understand what the world has become.

I am looking forward to;

* my 2nd divorce being finalized. yep I fell for the BS not once, but twice. I never said I was perfect, far from it.

* downsizing my crap so I can live on whats left of my 1.4 million after my divorce; good news is, shell have to back off from some of my savings, or I go after HER goverment pension. should be fun.

--> sell 2nd car, sell house, keep condo: check

* Built a wall around whats left so
I can live quite comfortably on my medium but manageable needs. Possibly work 4-5 years more of a job I hate, but which nets me 160,000 a year of self employed income...

* Have cappy Cap as my background desktop(lol) so I can hit my head with good advice before I do number 3 and be truly olympic class stupid

Finally, either find a religious, traditional woman, once that values family values and split roles; no feminist, marxist, democrat needs to apply, it wont work
OR
travel a lot in asia or eastern europe/russia and , with open eyes, find a mate there (after taking proper precautions, of course) that fulfills also condition 1 above.

I think, in 95% of the cases, feminism has ruined almost, almost every woman here into harridans...

Just my FYI, hope that was not too personal, but cappy, this article was PRICELESS

Jean

gauthijm said...

Superb article
explains a lot

Now that Im 50, I undrstand what I ddi wrong; the valuable division of labor between a man and a woman has been broken, with taxes now sky high to pay for Government as surrogate sugar daddy

Government jobs = make work has never been so true

Kate, you seem like my kind of gal, may your blogspot profile public and I can mail you once in a while, and shoot the breeze with you

Youre a breath of fresh air; I am neither peter pan, nor man-child, hipster or metrosexual moron.

Just a normal guy, struggling to understand what the world has become.

I am looking forward to;

* my 2nd divorce being finalized. yep I fell for the BS not once, but twice. I never said I was perfect, far from it.

* downsizing my crap so I can live on whats left of my 1.4 million after my divorce; good news is, shell have to back off from some of my savings, or I go after HER goverment pension. should be fun.

--> sell 2nd car, sell house, keep condo: check

* Built a wall around whats left so
I can live quite comfortably on my medium but manageable needs. Possibly work 4-5 years more of a job I hate, but which nets me 160,000 a year of self employed income...

* Have cappy Cap as my background desktop(lol) so I can hit my head with good advice before I do number 3 and be truly olympic class stupid

Finally, either find a religious, traditional woman, once that values family values and split roles; no feminist, marxist, democrat needs to apply, it wont work
OR
travel a lot in asia or eastern europe/russia and , with open eyes, find a mate there (after taking proper precautions, of course) that fulfills also condition 1 above.

I think, in 95% of the cases, feminism has ruined almost, almost every woman here into harridans...

Just my FYI, hope that was not too personal, but cappy, this article was PRICELESS

Jean

Anonymous said...

I agree with almost all of your posts, but this one elevates your cred to major league status.
What you have described is, in fact, the single biggest threat to the continuation of the US. Islam isn't even in second place. Brilliant post.

Jungle said...

Great Post. I am living the life you talk about after a divorce in 2010 and the ex taking the kids to the states. I come from a place where a lot of my friends that I went to school with believe in the importance of family and some have had good strong relationships,However; I have lots of friends that have gone through divorce and do have dates, but really are not that interested in hooking up with the next woman that is going to clean you out. Most of us in that position would rather be single.I believe that femminism is responsible as well as willing legal advisors who set out to demonize the man. Feminism is a definitley a driver for the creeping in of communism and socialism. You can also blame academia, as most of the professors in the Arts and Sciences are hard core lefties.I would also say that most lefties the belief in a higher power, for them, it is communism.

chris said...

There is a potential to change all this though. All those single, idle, socially alienated men make ideal prospective conscripts for a revolution.

All you need is the proper psy-ops.

Anonymous said...

@kate,

My view here only shows the time a comment was posted, not the date, so a response to you may be months out of date. However, you touch on some very important points which I have been making since the late 1960s, so thank you for providing the opening to play broken record.

The social scales of responsibility / benefits were generally balanced for both men and women when feminism hit the scene. As much as feminists tried to tilt the scales toward women by manipulating laws to relieve them of any responsibility to men and children and increase their entitlement to benefits at no cost to women, they actually failed. The Cappy will understand that the market actually began to correct itself at the micro level almost immediately - although it has taken some time for these corrections to percolate up to the macro level.

For the modern "traditional" woman, her life will be dictated largely by resource depletion. Men were a resource that women could exploit, but they were a renewable resource if managed correctly - something like timber. If a tract of timber was clear-cut, and the ground reseeded, in 40-50 years it could be harvested again.

However, if a tract was cut, and instead of being re-seeded it was turned into a shopping mall, it would never produce harvestable timber again - ever.

This is the situation that younger traditional women are facing when looking for husbands. No new "traditional" husbands have been planted in the past 40 years or so. The scrawny specimens planted as landscaping in the parking lots of the malls have no real strength and are just there for decoration.

Strangely, Factory usually takes a much more moderate stance than I usually do. You must have caught him on a bad day.

I actually agree with you that feminism has hurt women in general more than it has hurt men in the aggregate. For the religious minded - Rob at no-maam has pointed out that in the Garden of Eden God laid a separate curse on each sex. Strangely, feminism demanded that women take on both curses, unless they chose to remain childless and barren their whole lives - in which case they simply exchanged the female curse for the man's curse.

In the short term, "heroic single moms" have been propped up by stepping up the clear-cutting of husband(and future husband) timber, but by now almost all of the existing stands are cut down and even a very aggressive re-planting program is started immediately, it will be nearly 30 years before a new crop of husbands has matured enough to harvest.

And, to make matters worse, the tracts of land where they might have been grown have been used as a toxic waste dump for about 4 decades.

This time, I really don't think men are going to fix things for women. Both sexes seem to have evolved methods for keeping their own sex in line, but are somewhat ineffective at containing the excesses of the other sex. The White Knights and manginas have certainly hampered men's ability to respond to feminism by forcing men to bow to the Female Imperative.

So, it is pretty much going to be up to women to improve their product of womanhood enough that becomes more attractive to men than their xBoxes.

zed

Anonymous said...

Let us extrapolate the working feminist environment to it's more realistic conclusion: Though the author did mention 'legal' issues, the main thrust of the 'legal' industry in this economy is minority tort.

Take any major retail/technology/manufacturing concern in America, then look at the female employees suing that firm for millions (Indeed, collectively, BILLIONS) of dollars for "Sexual Harassment", "Discrimination", "Lack of Feminine Napkins in the Ladies Rooms" etc. Though most large companies have insurance to cover these costs, their bottom lines are seriously affected by these lawsuits. Not only lawsuits, but disability claims, Childcare Facilities, Maternity Leave (Paid, of course) Bad Hair Days and constant female requests for time off to handle their single parent home emergencies. The costs associated with these female issues have compelled many major manufacturers to transfer their factories overseas.

Of course, American women will never admit this aspect of their net drain on companies for 6 million years, but their attorneys will deny their profiteering from these women's litigious behaviors for 60 million years.

Anonymous said...

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard4.html