Translate

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The moral bankruptcy of conservatism

40 years of ultimatums, from Dalrock.
in the case of the gender war feminists have made an unspoken agreement with traditional conservatives:

You hold him down while I rob him.

Not only have Social Conservatives agreed, they were so eager to assist that they even volunteered to create an alibi for the crime. Whenever anything goes wrong with the heist, conservatives loudly blame men.

Feminists sternly tell us that 40 or so years ago women looked to their husbands as the rightful leader of the family. Men and women both married young, and with generally little previous sexual experience. Marriage was almost universally seen as a partnership for life.

Now women are actually proud to call themselves sassy. Lack of self control is now a virtue for women, and is openly celebrated in very young girls. This new high attitude woman however doesn’t come with the increased ability which would back it up. Women are being told they should delay marriage until they are at least 30, and many are following that advice. Yet after waiting so long to marry, women are now as likely as not to decide that they either don’t want to be married or have married the wrong man. Those who do stay married are very likely to feel justified to deny their husband sex and generally usurp his traditional role as head of the household. In the years prior to marriage women no longer feel that they must abstain from sex. Social conservatives have signed off on removing slut shaming, with the pretext that women’s preferred form of promiscuity is more moral than mens and any women who are slutty are merely innocent victims of the men they have sex with.


Prominent social conservatives like Peggy Young Nance and Bill Bennett are exhorting men to put down the video games, the porn and the beer and "man up" to marry all those modern American women. The assumption seems to be that men have some a priori duty to incur student loan debts, enter the corporate meat grinder, compete with the 1 million plus new Americans we import every year for housing and job opportunities, and marry a woman who is (1) in head-to-head economic competition with him, and (2) on the downward slope of attractiveness and fertility. The idea that any man would ever ask, "Why?," and "What's in it for me?" seems never to have entered anybody's head.

Large numbers of men can’t marry until their mid to late thirties. At the same time they are surrounded by large numbers of promiscuous attractive women being as true to themselves as they can possibly be. Men in this position have three options:

1. Stay celibate by choice.
2. Stay celibate or close to celibate due to being rejected by hypergamous young women.
3. Learn how to have sex with the hordes of young women riding the carousel.

This isn’t a question our society has spent much energy wrestling with. The underlying feeling is; who cares, so long as they man up and marry these women once they are done riding the carousel. It turns out however that the men themselves very much do care. This is an extremely long time we are expecting men to go before marrying. During this time we have the unspoken expectation that they will work their tails off to be ready to act as a provider while not getting too used to being single. Each decade we have pushed the envelope a little further, and we expect each new generation of men to simply suck it up a little more and fill in the gaps. One can argue that they should have beat another man to the punch and married one of the small number of chaste young submissive women who were looking to marry. But this is just shuffling the deck chairs around. At the end of the day this will only determine which men marry in their early to mid 20s and which ones are forced to wait it out; the overall numbers won’t change because the change is being driven by the choices of women, not men.


The game-changer in all this, it turns out, are the choices of men.

Social Conservatives and Feminists have been pretty happy with this deal for the last 40 years. What could possibly go wrong? Now along come men like Roissy and Roosh who say to young men not only do you not have to spend your youth in grinding celibacy, but you don’t need to sign up to marry a brassy sassy career gal slut who just as likely as not will deny you sex and/or take you to the cleaners while ripping your children away from you. They will teach young men how to pass the decade or so they would otherwise wait for their wife to tire of slutting around. Even better, they will teach them how to have all the sex they want with the youngest, prettiest women, all without having to knock themselves out career wise. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives gave men lemons; Roissy and Roosh taught them how to make lemonade.

Who reading this doesn’t understand that this was absolutely bound to happen? Why is anyone surprised at this? After 40 years of cumulative one sided demands (and concessions), men now see another option. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives are furious. How dare they choose something else! But they are the ones who turned marriage from a lifetime partnership to a way women can defraud men. They are the ones who told women to slut it up in their 20s and told men to wait for marriage until the women were done. They were the ones who denigrated the status of husband from leader of the family to cowering scapegoat. All I can say is they should get used to it. If it took 40 years of one sided demands to get here, it could easily take as long to move back to equilibrium (assuming it does).


The male marriage strike has started. The only thing that will break it will be the eventual return to patriarchal society. In the meantime, the movement-conservatives, with their wars to extend voting rights and feminism to Middle Eastern women, continue to reveal their moral bankruptcy.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://anti-gnostic.blogspot.com/2011/11/moral-bankruptcy-of-conservatism.html

Those who can't figure out the why of where we are could do worse than start reading macdonald.

john gibbs said...

And yet conservatives are still perceived as more moral than liberals. I think that is because they know the language of morality, whereas liberals are reticent. Your post is a worthy challenge to the stereotypes on both ends.