Thursday, February 28, 2013

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.



Sunday, February 24, 2013

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.


Saturday, February 16, 2013

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.