Random Thoughts ala Thomas Sowell…
A rehabilitation of the “beta” male will be fruitless as long as women are viewed as being naturally superior to men by the larger culture.
A focus on the historical importance of wide and deep investment of “betas” in society is good, but an unrelenting spotlight on the consequences of unconstrained female nature is vital.
To the untrained eye, the weaknesses inherent to male nature is more obvious than female nature. It’s much easier to recognize and lament a man violently killing another man as opposed to a woman passively “killing” a family.
Men are actors in their quest for a mate and women choose from them. It is much easier to critique the actions as opposed to the reactions. A woman choosing a man of poor character can always attribute it to being fooled, manipulated, or threatened.
Women either are deliberately coy about what they find attractive in a mate, or are unsure and unable to articulate it themselves. I lean more towards the latter with a bit of the former sprinkled in.
Until “White Knights” use some of their patented shaming language on the poor behavior of many women, progress will be minimal. I suggest giving WKs a dose of their own medicine. Humorous shaming might be effective in individual cases.
Mother hen shaming of their chicklet offspring would be helpful as well. This to me, given what I witness everyday, is a battle that was lost long ago.
Nothing is more effective to understanding the weaknesses of female nature then observing the way they vote or talk about political issues.
Men, by and large, recognize their own shortcomings, weaknesses and limitations. Women do not. I think men naturally do this well, and to the extent they don’t, contemporary culture is sure to beat it into them.
Social Conservatism/organized religion is the natural home of pointing out human failing in both males and females. They have abdicated 1/2 of this responsibility.
“Bio” Conservatism, rooted in the secular science of evolutionary biology and psychology is moving in to fill the void.
MRAs are good at pointing out WHAT injustices and double standards are taking place in the culture.
“Bio” Conservatives are good at pointing out WHY injustices and double standards are taking place in the culture.
The combination of leftover ideals from the Victorian era, organized religion 2.0, modern feminism, leftist ideology, and political correctness have made pointing out even the most benign of male/female differences verboten.
Gender realism is trapped between the pedestal placing from the right and the goddess worship from the left.
Thoughts on female nature and its effect on feminism….
A significant percentage of women believe they are inherently superior to most men. A sizable percentage of women are unhappy with what this attitude has wrought. Because of this attitude, they will be unable to realize the error of their assumptions. “Beta” males will be to blame for this unhappiness.
A newer updated feminism will/has gradually come on the scene, seeking to remedy the unfulfilled expectations of earlier iterations of their war with human nature.
Feminists will tire of warring with the inconsistancies between their nature and their dogma. The dogma isn’t an assault on human nature mind you, it just needs a little updating. After all, what kind of sick, unjust, patriarchal society makes a womyn choose between a hot, testosterone laden, bull in bed and a “kitchen bitch” who is good at paying a few of the bills and doing the dishes?
Cheating on the “kitchen bitch” is a viable alternative, but can be a bit messy and time consuming. Believe it or not, there are still a few dinosaurs around who object to that sort of behavior. Even the “kitchen bitch”, a man that can’t even get her wet anymore, is known to put up tepid objections to adultery. Guilt of course, is a patriarchal construct, but it would still be nice to skip it altogether. What a womyn to do?
Rationalize. A woman’s most loyal friend in any situation is rationalization. Feminists have elevated it to an art form. What women find attractive naturally will become the new feminist ideal. No need to talk yourself into the asexual, tedious, mangina anymore as a sop to your ideology. After all, if he wasn’t so damn boring, whiny, and indecisive, feminists wouldn’t have to go to all the trouble of updating itself. Sigh.
I predict( not exactly Nostradamus here, it’s already happening) the Sex and the City crowd will soon come to officially support a return to more traditional roles for men along with extolling the virtues of polyandry and a lifetime of short term relationships as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
This will not include a rollback of various subsidies to their never ending quest for more choices. It will promote more subsidies for new and different choices. “Betas” will bare the brunt of it.
The whole point of feminism is to liberate women from the boring and unfulfilling life as a homemaker and sexual object. The next step is to liberate them from the boring and unfulfilling life as an office drone and asexual men.
This will not include a more traditional role for women unless they choose one, albeit in an “empowered”, “enlightened” and most assuredly swpl sort of way. The “traditional” man they seek will not be George Washington or Ward Cleaver. It will not be Conor Friedersdorf or Mr. Jessica Valenti either. More like Bill Clinton or John Edwards.
The New York Times will applaud. Invisible mens rights bloggers will point out the inconsistencies. Roissy will game ever easier urban slut machines. George Sodini proteges will stew. Women will still be unhappy.
I am talking about ideological feminists here and their fellow travelers. The blue state, big city type of woman as Roissy might say. Jessica Valenti and her ilk. Not suburban and rural types. I have no doubt that women in “flyover” country are affected by this thinking, but at a less pronounced and slower rate.
Feminism has gone from saying that “a woman can do anything a man can do”, to “anything a man can do, a woman can do better”.
I believe it is here, amid the inconsistencies, bad faith, logical fallacies and contradictions that men might be able to have a bit of success if only minimally. Perhaps 34th wave feminism will be a bridge to far.
Feminism, along with other leftist groups, in their glee to crush the “beta” male and his patriarchal, racist, sexist and xenophobic beliefs are giving up a major weapon that has made its movement so attractive to useful idiots and sheeple in the 1st place. In a word, equality. Feminism is/has drifted/ing toward a superiority doctrine that could lose its luster and reveal itself for what it really is. This drift in ideology is one to be exploited.
If talk about the superior nature of women is fair game why not talk about the superior nature of men?
This is easier said than done. The double standard is a core tenet of political correctness.
The 1st baby step is making head way with conservatives of various stripes. A baby step indeed. Larry Auster and Steve Sailor, to use two examples, are hardly mainstream, traditional media friendly voices in their own right. The road to progress is hardly all downhill from there.
Future random thoughts, or more organized efforts on my part, will include the actual weaknesses of female nature and what, if anything, can be done for more people to accept them.
Ganttsquarry's Blog 
I predict( not exactly Nostradamus here, it’s already happening) the Sex and the City crowd will soon come to officially support a return to more traditional roles for men along with extolling the virtues of polyandry and a lifetime of short term relationships as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
An interesting post, Gantt.
As for the quote here, I think that the main event in the next 15-20 years will be the fallout from the education gap. Women are currently ~58% of college grads, and it’s expected that this will increase to perhaps as much as 65% in the next 10 years. This means that the rising generation of women and the one behind it will suffer from an extreme lack of similarly educated men — which means by definition that the pool of hypergamous potential mate men will be very small relative to the pool of women looking for them. This is bound to have a huge impact on female behaviors.
What I think will happen is that you will see many women simply giving up with finding a hypergamous mate and opt for single motherhood (which I expect will shoot through the roof), or not have children at all. The trend towards soft polygamy with sexually exciting men (a kind of serial non-monogamy with men whom women are de facto sharing with each other) will continue to grow, because the option of a stable mating with a hypergamous man will be available to relatively few women. Some women may explore polyandry, and some men may go for this because in a world where women are dominant in terms of education, they will also be dominant financially, and polyandry may be a good economic deal for a guy who has less money, doesn’t have great Game, but can offer his services as a husband/father to a woman who openly pursues sexual liaisons with other men. I expect that will be a small part of the mix, though.
I don’t see a call for men to return to traditional roles, really — at least not coming from feminists. I think we’ll continue to see feminists extolling the value of the kitchen bitch type of guy, while women in the street pursue Don Draper guys. I don’t see feminism doing a 180 and openly extolling the virtues of the Don Draper type or suddenly deciding that masculinity is not the mortal enemy of everything female. I think you’ll continue to see the disconnect between academic feminism and activist feminism, on the one hand, and the average girl in the bar, on the other, such that the media messaging conveys one type of man as the ideal while the actual real life experience indicates another type is being chosen by women in reality.
Hey Nova,
Nice to see you. You very well could be right with regard to the kitchen bitch. Especially with say, the 40 and older crowd. I think that type of man might lose its luster with younger women as they come of age to influence the debate more. As you know, we have seen more griping about the KB by women who should, on paper, think the world of him and his equalist behavior. If this griping becomes more pronounced I believe women will rationalize for perhaps, kitchen bitch 2.0. I notice that whenever feminists want something that is contrary to their stated goals, they are very good at obfuscating the truth and rationalizing their true desires with something more noble.
I wish I hadn’t used the word “traditional” because of what it implies. I meant that younger and future feminists will advocate for a more masculine sort of man in the sexual arena. Don Draper’s walking wallet and sex appeal without the chauvinism and physical abuse. Think John Edwards. This man will have to mouth the platitudes of the feminist movement but will be free to be more of a cad. Polyandry with this type of male is more attractive then having their very own Mr. Jessica Valenti.
I think another possibility is an advocacy of “adopting” a little pet “savage” to use for “excitement, impregnation, and sex. Bill the young hot carpenter with Ms. Feminist Studies. This might be where the trumpeting of short term relationships come in. This may become a better option then the boring, educated kitchen bitch. Plus there wont be enough kitchen bitches to go around in 15, 20 years. I don’t think the 180 will be quick and alot of work will be put in to try to make it coherent with the traditional tenants of feminism.
An eventual 70 30 split of college graduates is not sustainable. Feminists will not like this. Plenty of shaming will be directed at males about how they aren’t pulling their weight and the like. This is what I meant by an advocacy of a return to “traditional” male behavior in the employment arena. does it go against their stated tenets? Yes. But a 70/30 split goes against their natures. A more convoluted updated feminism will attempt to reconcile the two.
One more thing. I don’t think women like cheating on the kitchen bitch. Not because of moral objections or guilt. Once they cheat, and form bonds with the sexually exciting man, they often wish the kitchen bitch would disappear and be out of their site. He often disgusts them and it feels very uncomfortable to slink around denying him sex. Why not rationalize a John Edwards, that allows plenty of personal freedom sans the icky feelings? Or the little savage who can contribute money to the household, is more manly, and is even handy with outdoor chores.
The kitchen bitch type of guy will still be attractive to some, but with his numbers dwindling a few other “empowering” alternatives might be nice as well.
One more thing….
I guess I think an eventual rationalization of a controlled masculinity will be in order. Masculinity on the feminists terms.
An interesting response.
I think they will have to do more than shame to get the 70/30 issue addressed. They’ll actually have to revise education policy — we’ll see about that one.
I guess in terms of what I expect the women on the street (and not the feminist ideologues and academics) to do is more of what we see now: chasing Don Draper types for passion and excitement and delaying children for as long as possible, perhaps forever. Having fewer suitable mates is going to encourage more of that behavior, I think, rather than less of it, at least in the medium term.
If the feminists ever turn around and start advocating pro-boy changes in the schools, I guess I’ll have to eat my hat, but I really don’t expect that. I expect, rather, a broadening of what we have seen for a few decades now in the black middle class. The education gap there is wide — about 70/30 or even higher. And the women are simply not marrying and not having kids. Many have simply dropped out of the dating/mating game altogether. I guess I don’t see much of a reason to think that this trend simply won’t be extrapolated to the broader culture, coupled together with an increase in soft polygamy (as we’ve also seen in the black community) for the same reason.
But I could be wrong, though.
Nova, thanks for the reply
Let me offer up a couple of clarifications
1. The stuff you believe will happen to society as a result of trends we are seeing now in the black community and creeping into the white community I largely agree with you on.
2. I am talking more about the heirs to the Jessica Valenti, Naomi Wolf school of feminism. Not the old line lesbian shrikes on college campuses. The latter are simply man haters and will never change a bit. Because of the hard line mysandry, they will never give a second thought to what qualities in men attract them.
3. I don’t think feminists of any stripe will offer up anything meaningful as far as education goes. They are 1st stage thinkers with little understanding of human nature in general or male nature in particular. They don’t really care about anything but their own individual self interest anyway.
They will however, complain. Alot. Imagine what future workplaces will look like with such an over sized sample of degreed females. I think it will be much harder in 10 to 20 years to argue with a straight face about traditional masculine, patriarchal oppression. Most of the women who are now under thirty, who will be the leading lights of feminism in the future, will have never even seen much of true masculinity or patriarchy.
They will have been brought up in a completely feminized education system from grammar school on. At college they will be surrounded by fellow travelers of the same sex. Yes even more so then it is now. Media and entertainment is thoroughly feminized as well.
This younger women won’t even be able to relate to being oppressed in that sense. She won’t even have a grandmother to tell her about the dark old days of ward cleaver and father knows best. It will be an abstraction in her lesbian professors’ history book. A tweaking of feminist thought will be in order to change with the times.
This will not include any kind of reevaluation of feminist or leftist doctrine. The victim mentality will be as strong as ever. What then, will they be victimized by? Surely not patriarchy in the traditional sense. Nor old school masculinity. In their minds i believe, they will be victimized by lazy manboys who drink and play video games to much. Men that don’t pull their own weight in their eyes. Men that don’t “challenge” them enough. Men who aren’t “adventurous” enough. Men who don’t do their fair share of the decision making in a relationship. Men/ginas and their “equalist” notions about sex. ( Ya think ole Mr. Valenti is very aggressive in the bedroom?) Men dumping everything on women.
It is this new type of victimization that will spur some changes in a future feminism. The women of today who are under thirty will be the leaders of that new vanguard. I think we are seeing the seeds being planted now. So the call for Masculinity 2.0 will take place. Masculinity on their terms. Women giving men a bit longer leash in order to satisfy their sexual natures and do the dirty sorts of things women don’t like to do. This will be viewed as empowering not weak.
This is stuff women do now anyway without really admitting it. I think in the future in will be more vocalized.
Feminism has become an superiority doctrine. Its not that men and women are essentially the same but women are superior to men. How many times have we seen articles about the superior way women vote, work, run a business etc. etc.
I don’t think it takes much of a leap from that kind of thinking to want men to complement womens superior nature, as opposed to working right along side in a 50/50 manner.
This is why I think the “kitchen bitch” will be a bit less desirable for ideological feminist type of women. There will still be plenty of them, but it wont be enough for them to do 50% of the housework and let her make all of the decisions. With fewer college educated KBs around, a desire to rationalize a new kind of feminist ideal will need to take place.
Keep in mind, I don’t think this will work. Women affected and influenced by this way of thinking will be confused with mixed messages and all the rest just like they are now. Masculinity 2.0 will not cause illegitimacy to decline or marriage rates to improve. I don’t look at this as being a helpful development in maintaining Western Civilization.
I could be all wet on all of this as well. Mostly what spurred this thinking of mine on is the fact that most victim movements need new reasons to be victimized. Feminists aren’t going away and I think they will need new angles and rationalizations for the propagation of their agenda. Perhaps in 20 years they will still be talking about domestic violence and the wage gap exclusively. It’s certainly possible.
Masculinity 2.0 will be a re-labeled beta with a few more ‘bells and whistles’. Truly masculine men won’t care what the fems define as masculinity in their twisted minds. Redefining a poop sandwich as roast beef doesn’t change its essence. One bit of the sandwich will obliterate that crazed fantasy.
Yeah that’s kind of what I’m getting at D. I like how you put that. Feminism in its quest to remain relevant and gripe perpetually about men will need new reasons for it. So a war with “men who just won’t grow up” and asexual pussies who are too deferential will be necessary.
Your right real alphas won’t give a shit. Not much will change really. Just new reasons for feminists to play the victim role and new updated demands on men to live up to expectations.