Hypergamy and the Global Collapse of Traditionalism

 

The following is a submission from a subscriber of mine who wishes to remain anonymous:

In a fast paced urbanized America, hearing of a 50% divorce rate triggers about as much excitement, for many, as hearing the weather forecast on the radio.

To the masses of technology absorbed consumers it’s nothing more than a number they vaguely remember being spouted in the verbal diarrhea of a sociology class or on an episode of “Two and a Half Men”. Furthermore, hearing that 70% of women initiate these divorces (a less revealed statistic) does little more than lift the occasional eyebrow. However, for many men it’s a number that cannot and will never be forgotten; especially for those who have suffered its soul sucking and many times life ending fate as they are left with no financial security, no home, no access to children, no sympathy, and very little left to give hope of a dignified future.

A rising number of people in the real world or “red pill” world who have woken from one nightmare and into another have started to ask questions and seek solutions. Sadly many are starting to realize that the rabbit hole has reached a fork in the road despite agreeing on many of the same contributory biological, sociological, and socioeconomic factors. So what’s the word of the day?

Hypergamy!!! (the biologically driven instinct of females to marry men of higher status) is the keyword that seems to cause much of the controversy amongst the world of truth seekers. However, the more hypergamy gets rigorous scrutiny the more irrefutably valid it becomes as a result. While its validity has allowed it to push through some “politically correct only” arenas, many traditionalists don’t much care for the word.

They like to argue amongst themselves and others in the red pill world about its relativeness to divorce in America; usually downplaying its contribution. Commonly perceived traditionalist’s remedies to the increasing divorce trend are -That we just need to end feminism, readopt patriarchal chivalry (that still exists), shrink government, that we need to “man up” and lead women, and that we need to take back our American sovereignty- a sovereignty that in reality is nothing more than an egocentric repression of biological programming.

However, for those who recognize feminism as a factor, yet see hypergamy as the catalyst, we turn to cross cultural studies and find that indeed other countries are following the same path. If 50 years of American feminism is the main contributor to the demise of the “happy days” then what explains the current skyrocketing divorce numbers in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (GCC) countries such as Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait (Kuwait being the highest at 37.13% in 2007 according to an article by booz&co)

I’ll tell you how. Oil>economic growth> modernization> consumerism/ materialism> A Michael Jordan style free throw line slam dunk of traditionalism right into the garbage; and this time it’s not the Christians feeling the slip of Holy Matrimony, It’s the nations of Islam losing its grip on Nikah (marriage). For decades now men in America have had to do little more than step out of their front door to be bombarded by the plethora of shaming tactics used by American traditionalists in attempts to convince them to maintain or regain their fortitudinous rescue of marriages; a rescue that clearly their abandoning spouses have not wanted.

And, apparently this trend is becoming popular in GCC countries. According to the article, “Individual GCC countries have taken various legal and social steps to halt this rise such as considering the implementation of new laws that would prevent husbands from recklessly pronouncing talaq, the words of divorce, and organizing programs to promote awareness of divorce’s disruptive impacts.” Furthermore, we see this….

“GCC countries have also started taking some steps to ensure more protection for women in divorces. The recent appointment of female judges and lawyers makes it more likely that the interpretation of family law will give more consideration to women.”…

So essentially “husbands” are increasingly the party legally responsible for maintaining marriage tradition by law while women are being given the green light to proceed with divorce. Ok- incentivized, allowed, rewarded, coddled; whichever choice words you desire to use. Regardless, it is no secret that divorce rates have reached a number high enough to spawn gender biased government intervention while clearly revealing that traditional values, no matter how sacred, will be tossed to the compost pile once the possibility of more lucrative seeds are whispered. Let me break this down a little more.

Women are being influenced to make whichever decision best benefits them while husbands are being coerced and, if necessary, legislated by law into maintaining traditional marriage values.

To further see evidence of this we turn to an article titled “Divorce and its impact on UAE society” written by Najla Al Awadhi. Now to make things more clear, here we have a woman of the culture and in the midst of the divorce explosion in UAE society. Let it be known that nowhere in this article is there any mention of men being the ones to initiate divorce nor is there mention of such related problems caused by men. Rather the article seems to address concern solely on the potential misfortunes that women may suffer; either through divorce, or on the flip side, through matrimonial loyalty. She states:

“Amongst the changes has been the rapid rise of female education, and an educated woman is no longer solely dependent on her husband, she has access to work opportunities, and most importantly she has a strong mind, which allows her to rationally decide as to what type of life she wants to live.”

Now gentlemen, while its humanistic and completely understandable that women be allowed any independence they desire, what you first must realize is that independence should be just that…..INDEPENDENCE….not government avocation that gives extra rights for women while shaming men through legislation. That’s hypocrisy! And if her hypocritically braggadocios, yet fear loaded statement doesn’t reveal women as leading the divorce initiatives in UAE societies, then you should seriously think about wearing some very large heavily tinted sunglasses the next time you play a game of poker, because your ass is getting robbed while your head is buried in the sand.

Still not convinced?

Let’s go further. She goes on to say,

“In my grandmother's generation, this was not the case, most women were illiterate, they had no understanding of the rights Islam had granted them, let alone any grasp of how to practice these rights, or how to survive independently.”

Now is it any wonder that she will be advocating for whatever benefits women most; especially as she admits women have had no understanding of how to live independently while simultaneously admitting to pre-existing laws that have ALLOWED women to divorce? So she is basically saying, (Hey ladies…..lets slow down a second here….We don’t want to play our cards too quickly….lets be more careful and make sure we make the right move.) What seems to be more apparent here, is that women did know the laws, as she clearly acknowledges that they didn’t waste any time jumping ship as soon as they perceived more lucrative options (as you will see further down). Furthermore, what seems to be bothering Najla Al Awadhi is that many women may have jumped ship a little too impulsively.

Still not convinced?

Further into her article she states:

“Rapid economic growth has also meant that as society we have become more materialistic, hence our material wants have increased, and this has often become a burdening factor in marriages, and today we are seeing a rise in dowry expectations, and wedding costs. This added to the demands for a luxurious lifestyle topped with daily living expenses, all have put a lot of pressure on marriages, as any inability to finance all the above can lead to marital discord.”

Hmmmm. There’s little to argue about that statement. However, what is unlikely is that Ms Awadhi intended to admit the ever increasing materialistic nature of women so bluntly. Nevertheless, this is exactly what she has done; unless confusion lays in an improper cultural association and all those “dowry” Bailey and Jacob & Co diamonds that we see on the fingers of American women are somehow marketed to and worn by men in the UAE. No need to expand on that. Ok! OK! Some of you are still not convinced. Well. Let’s just drive the point home shall we? Ms Awadhi states here,

“Let me say here that divorce is a complex issue, I am not writing here to say that we should discourage divorce nor am I saying we should encourage it, what I do believe is that we should understand the underlying reasons for the spike in the divorce rate to be able to approach it in a way that protects the rights of all involved and most importantly that leads to greater social harmony.”

Yes Ms Awadhi, let’s do understand the reasons; many of which you have already clearly documented and/or accidentally revealed. As you conclude,

“The UAE government has set up many social programmes to provide this type of education for young nationals today, to prepare them for the life journey of marriage, to instill in them the responsibility that this role entails; as the family unit is the foundation of the social fabric of our society, and therefore it is sacred and amongst our national priorities.”

It is clear she doesn’t advocate that women decide one way or the other. It also reveals that not all women in the culture have decided to jump ship. Many are still weighing options; seeking whatever option brings them the most hypergamously rewarding outcome. So be it. Women clearly will do what is best for them. And that being said, it’s past time men start doing the same for themselves, especially by safe-guarding themselves from gender biased government legislation and cultural shaming tactics that seek to hold them to marital loyalty while advocating that women do as they please. It’s also time men start listening to what women say, because the truths they often deny in a moment of need, they will brag about in a moment of pride.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Costa Concordia: Unbelievable Whiteknighting

I'ts truly an amazing thing to behold... The level to which men can pathetically scrape the bottom of the barrel to remain in servility to women. These three men, the quintessential trad-con workmules that they are, insist on faulting men for exhibiting and acting upon the strongest biological imperative there is (the will to survive).

They are cognizant of, and very pissed off at the changes that feminism has wrought within society, but unable to lay any responsibility on the feet of the opposite sex, because you see, it can never be women at fault for spitting on all the sacrifices that men make for them. It can never be women who feel so entitled to male disposability and utility that they view it almost as an automatic entitlement they are owed, no, you see MEN are at fault here. Their crimes? No longer being willing to risk life and limb for a bunch of female ingrates that think it a "real man's" onus to die for them.

 

In these men we observe a remarkable binary of thought, a doublethink of sorts. They hate feminism for destroying traditional gender customs, from wich they derive thier entire masculine identity. And yet they can't bring themselves even, to reject protecting the same feminists from some hypothetical attacker in a "dark alley" because, why? Because they're still women, and the traditional masculine role is to protect women, all women, from harm at all costs... Even the very feminists they claim to despise. Pay attention folks, this is pure unadulterated gynocentrism on display here.

 

Posted with Blogsy

MRM growing increasingly tired of partisan hacks.

Can't say I'm surprised, but Paul Elam at AVFM has called out Chapin and his perpetual attempts to inject a trad-con right wing agenda into the MRM. I myself have grown tired of addressing these people but I'm glad that the dust is finally settling on a consensus...that being, that the mrm has rejected political partisanship (without denying a need for political action) and that the values of traditionalism are endemically gynocentric and anti male (without forcing anyone to adopt any alternative lifestyle for themselves). I really don't get all the controversy over AVFM using the term MHRM. I Prefer the original term of men's right's activist (MRA) and I will continue to use it, but I'm perfectly fine with AVFM using their own syntax for the mens movement.

 

Posted with Blogsy

More feminist friendly garbage on "mens rights reddit"

Its increasingly disgusting to watch

 

Posted with Blogsy

The delayed father-son bond

The world beckons at the young male adolescent, offering him promise of untold adventure, not just adventure but what feels like to him, (no question due to the brashness and naïveté of youth) like infinite adventure. He is at the budding stages of a male fascination with the world, a desire to explore, to challenge his senses and intelligence, to see how much he can extract from this chaotic world. These feelings turn him toward his father, he begins to realize that his father is far from the massive unflinching all knowing mediator of all things, but that he too went through this awakening, this great questioning of the world around him. He realizes that his father's seemingly inexhaustible stores of knowledge was a result of this same great questioning just beginning to trickle into his adolescent consciousness. It dawns on him that his father is a human being.

The death of the mother son bond correlates with the first time he recognizes the humanity and vulnerability of his father. All in an instant it occurs to him just how much of a thankless sacrifice his father has made to put food in his mouth and a roof over his head, and he recognizes that his mother was nothing more than a passive spectator along for the ride the entire time...thus the mother son bond dies, he can no longer respect his mother, at least not in any way approaching this new found respect he has for his father.

He has realized that:

A) His father is not an inexhaustible god that goes off to do god things for half the day and comes back home to encroach upon his child like comfort where mommy knows best.

B) His father is mortal, and that his father will eventually die, and that he will eventually become his father.

If the aforementioned lack of cognition surrounding a father's humanity sounds familiar, its because it's the way women view men in so called happy fulfilling traditional relationships...she doesn't acknowledge his humanity because like the pre-adolescent boy who can't conceptualize his fathers humanity, the full grown traditional wife can't fathom her husband's humanity either.

It is up to men to reject traditionalism, as it deprives men and their sons of an understanding of each other that could be forged much earlier in life... Instead, ironically the adolescent male and his father are alien to each other until they become aware of the harshness of their societies disposable view of them. Its time that men demand just as much of the formative years of their son's lives as the supposedly more "nurturing" mother gets.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Feminist thought police and the Warren Farrell debacle

The above video elucidates clearly what feminism is really all about. A bunch of brainwashed fools who have secured themselves from scrutiny, trying to silence any and all who dare pose opposition to their stranglehold on university culture. The particular female feminist calling men interested in what Warren Farrell had to say "rapists and scum" didn't even bother to hide the contorted rage in her face, the seething hatred in her voice, the pure indignation that free speech contrary to the feminist victim narrative would be allowed on the same college campus where she is earning her useless women's studies "gender expert" certification (I won't insult those pursuing education in the hard sciences by using the word "degree" to describe her 4 years of victim-indoctrination).

 

If you notice at 3:57 to 4:40 , while this particularly nasty feminist was harassing a non threatening man about his attendance of the Warren Farrell seminar, after calling him "rape apologist scum" she says "these are the men that are going to rape"-- and then she catches herself for a moment, a slight inflection of the voice belies the deeper motivation behind her outrage before she continues-- "men that are going to rape the women in your lives". Her body language, the way she caught herself, is the behavior of a bully who lost situational awareness of the cameras documenting her. Much like the mass hysteria that labels you "unpatriotic" or an "America hater" for not supporting various senseless middle eastern wars, this feminist rape culture hysteria labels you a rape supporter for wishing to hear opinions contrary to the feminist narrative.

 

Listen to how she yells "fucking scuuuum!"(at exactly 4:27) as the police officer allows the gentleman to pass. She yells it out like a child throwing a temper tantrum because her daddy (govt. in the form of a police officer) has finally decided to not give her what she wants this time, no matter how much she stamps her feet or holds her breath. As I've said in previous posts, feminism operates on mimetic repetition of lies, a police officer choosing to ignore "rape culture, Rape Culture, RAPE CULTURE!" and choosing to instead preserve the right of free speech is a symbolic rejection of feminist power indeed. This feminist victim hood tyrant couldn't hide her anger that her oppressive gender narrative was, even for an instant, successfully challenged and dispatched.

That this is our societies reaction to a man (Warren Farrell) talking about issues that effect men, for the purposes of helping men, speaks volumes about societies vested interest in suppressing independent male thought. Just keep working, so you can get married and reproduce little men, nothing to see here...

 

Posted with Blogsy

Political correctness in the mens movement.

Stardusk has made an excellent video in response to my latest upload in regards to the self depracating manner in which many MRA's will obfuscate the complicity of the female, with the misandrous juggernaut that is feminism, by saying something to the effect of...

"Well men do it too, if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they'd be divorcing in equal numbers" etc.

This is standard operating procedure (for self depracating, koombaya, and upon the collapse of feminism men and women lived in wedded bliss forever and ever) MRA types.

Never mind the study that I mentioned in my anti traditionalism videos, showing two and a half decades worth, of women exhibiting a 40% increase in initiating divorce if they were the primary breadwinners in the household. Here it is directly quoted from the article itself.

 

But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.

researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks.

 

According to this study, women, regardless of whether or not they are affluent or poor, will still chose to trade up and marry more successful men for wealth/status. This is hypergamy in its purest sense, and yet pointing it out in the manosphere will trigger knee jerk grand mal seizures from self loathing, utopian MRA's that have declared a war on pointing out any correlative behavior women exhibit with feminism.

In the land where unicorns roam, and correlative female behaviors must not be named, the ministry of love regularly gins out tripe such as the quote below for export to my channel's comment section:

If women could get off their ass and earn/invest at the same rate as the men we would see 50% divorce rates (roughly).

Unless you can aptly demonstrate hypergamous behavior as being STRICTLY a female trait then it is useless for MRAs or MGTOG to obsesses over.

Who said it (a troll with multiple sock puppet accounts) is irrelevant at this point. What matters is that we acknowledge this indigestible pig slop for the complete and utter NAWALT deflection that it is. Men won't progress in our understanding of women and feminism until we do. These types will invariably give you the "women are the great victims of feminism" conned by those evil evil...(insert your preferred bogeyman -Marxists, Rothschilds, the "Left"-) conspiracy theory. The qeustion they never ask is if feminism was a big bad conspiracy to destroy families, then why were ONLY women given the power to divorce without consequence?. If the goal was to destroy families, surely they would encourage and legally empower both men and women towards frivolous divorce.

Or wait, could it be that... (Nah never mind -shudders-)

Eh..fuck it I'll say it. Could it be that women are naturally inclined to divorce men the moment they don't need them anymore?. Could it be that men (generally speaking) are very much less likely to abandon their families than women are?

What am I doing contemplating such thought crime, we have feminism to destroy...right after we convince a few hundred thousand more women that we don't hate them. Onward ho! to the perpetual mens rights public relations campaign!

At the very least judging by the highest rated comment on stardusk's video, at least some men are catching on to the PC creep seeping into the mens movement these days.

 


More to come my freinds. Stay tuned.

 

 

Posted with Blogsy