(03-16-2014 01:38 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  Now I'm just laughing at these broads since I can see their painful futures hehe!!

Not only do they not have a painful future ahead of them, but even if you tried to explain to a modern woman why college is a waste of her time, she won't believe you. And if you explain to an older woman that she wasted her youth, there's only a small chance she'll be honest enough to admit her mistakes.

Even women who fuck up royally usually invent 100 lies and excuses to avoid any personal responsibility, and as long as they were obedient little worker slaves they will have enough money for themselves until they die.

No punishment, no consequences, total denial.

Fact is... most women don't give a shit about the future. As long as they have money, they don't care at all.

(03-16-2014 01:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:38 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  Now I'm just laughing at these broads since I can see their painful futures hehe!!

Not only do they not have a painful future ahead of them, but even if you tried to explain to a modern woman why college is a waste of her time, she won't believe you. And if you explain to an older woman that she wasted her youth, there's only a small chance she'll be honest enough to admit her mistakes.

Even women who fuck up royally usually invent 100 lies and excuses to avoid any personal responsibility, and as long as they were obedient little worker slaves they will have enough money for themselves until they die.

No punishment, no consequences, total denial.

Fact is... most women don't give a shit about the future. As long as they have money, they don't care at all.

If you tell a woman mistakes she's made -- and continues to make -- she will often go over-the-top insane and go out of her way to call or write you and dump you so she can reciprocate with a barrage of insults. Even the smart ones.

This is what inspired my thread "Mastering Getting Dumped" and why couldn't just sidestep the breakups.

Here is the sad truth: these women know they're screwed up and supposedly seek "advice." What they're really seeking is validation. If you don't give that to them, they interpret any constructive criticism as an attack. Then they "cut you off" (exact words used on me) because you're "being verbally abusive" -- which is defined by them as anything negative you say.

This is the Southern "honor" tradition without all the good parts. You're expected to "honor" them, but they did nada to earn that, unlike their predecessors.

These womens' awful decisions include spending themselves into insane amounts of debt because of "shopping addiction," wasting time and money on useless trainers and shrinks, and starting needless drama at work (shut up and do your job). Then there's the family battles, the sniping about friends, droning on about bullshit advice books and life coaches...

I don't have the stomach to simply nod like a ball-less Blue Pill idiot hearing all of this. At some point I have to get real with these women. They don't take it well.

My feeling is that if women aren't taking care of children or a husband, they mistake their personal and professional acquaintances for family and can't understand why they're not treated in return as such. I've seen this enough with thirty- and forty-something women to think it's a growing phenomenon. Bringing this back home, some of these women might stay looking good, but the consequences they pay are interior...or hidden away in their debt-laden bank accounts and prescriptions for the latest anti-depressant.

There are two things that should also be considered that older women have as options; Sex tourism and being a sugar momma.

While rare, there are good looking athletic guy who need someone ot pay for their college and they get with this ugly fat mule so she will pay for their college.

Then ofcourse you have post wall women who travel to Africa to pay young boys to have sex with them.

Women will never be punished for their bad choices because there will always be men out there to give them attention.

and in this disgusting matriarchy feminist society, if a woman cannot leverage her looks, she can leverage her money.

(03-16-2014 01:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 01:38 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  Now I'm just laughing at these broads since I can see their painful futures hehe!!

Not only do they not have a painful future ahead of them, but even if you tried to explain to a modern woman why college is a waste of her time, she won't believe you. And if you explain to an older woman that she wasted her youth, there's only a small chance she'll be honest enough to admit her mistakes.

Even women who fuck up royally usually invent 100 lies and excuses to avoid any personal responsibility, and as long as they were obedient little worker slaves they will have enough money for themselves until they die.

No punishment, no consequences, total denial.

Fact is... most women don't give a shit about the future. As long as they have money, they don't care at all.

They won't though. Let's run some quick sums.

GDP per capita for the U.S. is ~$50,000/year.

What would they pay in tax on that? Perhaps 20%? So they'd walk away with $40,000/year. Let's say they live even a little bit frugally (yeah right, but humour me anyway) and save 10% of that. For the sake of simplicity, let's say they work for forty years.

Let's say they get 5% above inflation. Compounded over forty years, they end up with $507,000 (2014 dollars).

Let's then say they switch to a much more conservative portfolio where they're essentially only matching inflation. The life expectancy of the average young chick now is something like 85. So basically, that $507,000 needs to last twenty years. That's $25,000/year and that doesn't include any major medical bills that might come due, nor does it include any form of debt (including student debt) over that time. That $25,000/year will either mean a drastic reduction in lifestyle, some herb paying for them (see my above point about how that number is diminishing), or severe dependence upon the government. What happens when (not if) the government can't foot that bill? Looks like cat lady will be eating cat food out of the can too.

That's for the average income earner who has even just a modicum of financial sense and self discipline during her main earning years and leaves college debt free. How many women fall into that category?

We are above treating women as gods. Even though in practical terms they are becoming that. They are above shame or punishment, I agree.

We cannot fix the decay no matter how bad it gets. Sad truth.

We can rule above it all with hard work and strong frame.

(03-16-2014 01:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  I maintain what I say - there are really no consequences for women. All they need to do is follow their feelings, the rest of the world be damned.

There is much truth in what you say. Certainly, the consequences for being a woman of low morals is lower than at any time in recent history. Possibly in all of history. I've read that, towards the end of the Roman empire, women were uncontrollable lascivious sluts, too. But as there was no birth control then, there was at least some consequence (nature) for slutting around.

Today there is little to no consequence of unintended pregnancy (what with birth control, abortion etc) and no consequence of being ostracized from society. In most of recorded history, women who behaved like the average woman today would be outcasts. But today, we CELEBRATE our slutty women, call them empowered, and even PAY (through our taxes) to maintain them. So why shouldn't they be sluts?

But are they happy? Most certainly not. Like a child who insists on eating as much candy as he wants and then ends up with a terrible stomach ache, women have insisted on leading a life suitable for a man - working men's jobs, having men's sexual morality. And it has made them MISERABLE! Even the ones who lie about their past and marry up, as in your example. They are still MISERABLE because they aren't wired mentally or emotionally to handle an unstructured life. Men are. Women are more like dogs or children: They NEED boundaries, structure, discipline, and yes leadership. Without it, they end up in a state where they pop anti-depressants like M&Ms.

One of the best threads on the forum. The level of intelligence is astounding. Bravo gentlemen.

Amazing thread. I happen to agree with both Samseau and DOBA, in the sense that 1) No, they don't realize there are consequences, mostly because of the rationalization hamster for any bad decision they might make but 2) Looking at things objectively through our red shades, there are definitely some consequences for their actions. Let me explain through some recent anecdotes, which should bring a chuckle and a nod from our seasoned posters (meaning older guys like me).

Cast of characters -

John (hey, that's me!), 40, self made success (financially independent), lives in major US city, 12% bodyfat following paleo principles, average game, very red pill
Baley*, 39, I estimate she hit the wall at 34, teacher, $85k income, carousel rider, still has a great bod (5 4, 110 lbs, 32 DD with limited sag) but you cant hide those wrinkles, used to seriously date high end alphas (a NFL player, a CEO of a major beverage company, etc), now just fucks guys like me wondering why we wont commit
Hedley*, 35, hit the wall at 31, funeral director (heh), $85k income, party girl, smoke show back in the day (5 8, long legs, did some modeling, etc), used to seriously date high end alphas (a local celeb morning DJ, a hedge fund manager, etc), now just fucks guys like me wondering why we wont commit

These girls are easy lays and still give me a boner so they are currently in my rotation. But back in the day, maybe 10-15 years ago, they wouldn't give a guy like me the time of day, and if they did my former blue pill self would have given my left arm to marry one of these sluts. But besides the easy lays, half the reason I currently hang out with these "ladies" is to quiz them on various life choices they have made and to see that hamster wheel spinning, I mean, it is truly something to behold.

Clearly to anyone on this board, it would have been in the best interest of both of these girls to settle down in mid to late 20's,while they were at their peak, with any of the alpha males I mentioned above (I am convinced at least one alpha would have married them up if they showed proper girl game (feminine, good mother material, loyal, etc) . So if they made a good decision, their life would be the following -

- Easily pop out 2 kids
- Easily get the body to bounce back because they are still young-ish
- Live a 7 figure + lifestyle
- Choose to go back to work or not, entirely at their discretion since the family doesn't need the money
- Be genuinely attracted to their husband
- Live happily ever after

But they chose to ride the carousal one song too long, so to speak. So now their reality is the following -

- Try to snag any beta male that says yes to commitment (tick, tock, tick, tock)
- Try to have one kid, usually after years of mental anguish and tens of thousands of dollars of in vitro, with odds of maybe 1 in 4 it actually happens
- Never get rid of the extra fat put on during pregnancy as their bodies are less resilient to bouncing back
- Be forced to go back to work to maintain a lifestyle they are accustomed too (assuming the beta male makes a decent, but not great, living)

So even if some beta shlub comes to their rescue, there are material consequences (worse lifestyle/less money, less attraction to husband, worse body, etc) but they will never admit it, and rationalize it all away (actual quotes from them - "I didnt know what I wanted at 25", "I was having too much fun to settle down", "What I wanted back then in a man is different than what I want today", blah blah blah). So as with all women, ignore what they say ("marrying at 39 was a good decision for me, I have no regrets!!") and look at reality and see they are clearly worse off.

- John

p.s perfect postscript for this story. I was having lunch with Baley one time and I randomly asked her if she ever had a 3some. She lied (I later confirmed she had at various points) and said no, but at one point her then bf asked her to approach this very attractive girl at a bar to get to know her for a possible future romp. So I ask her to describe the girl. Her response? "Pretty hot, 5 8, and she had some weird occupation...funeral director I believe". I mean, you just cant make this shit up.

* names changed to protect the guilty

What's sad about human civilizations in general is that we all tend to try to live in the past until it is way too late. If you look at the ruling class in 18th century France or right before the Byzantine empire collapsed, they were basically out to lunch thinking everything would persist as it had for generations before and got slaughtered for it. Even in American culture look at our media. It still attempts to be family safe with FCC guidelines from generations ago and portrays the lifestyles of nuclear families on network television--a family structure that generally does not exist in our actual culture anymore because the current generation of young people isn't bothering to start families. Our family laws were designed to help an old hag who lost her husband of 30 years during a time when women were rarely in the workforce and needed some government intervention to get money. This structure of alimony and forced transfer of wealth is obviously out of touch with what's happening now where women can generally get money more easily than men. Our current dilemma is that none of this has changed even though it has ceased to be useful for men and incentivized women to cheat the system by getting free money through divorce, welfare, child support, student loans, and pretend jobs.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of this changing anytime soon as the mainstream political parties are either going to keep beating the drum of free money for women through current policies, or appeals to morality, religion, and turning the clock back to the 1950s. Neither solution is feasible long-term, and most people aren't waking up to this fact.

My only hope is that the generation of men who are now in their 20s and 30s will make many of our red-pill ideas politically relevant, which will spur reform in the areas mentioned. However, I'm not too optimistic considering the political process is fairly rigged, and what most of us think or want isn't nearly as important as lobbying behind closed doors.

TL;DR - we're basically fucked because the ruling class has their heads buried in the sand and most people are living in the past, not the present reality.

(03-16-2014 03:01 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  What's sad about human civilizations in general is that we all tend to try to live in the past until it is way too late. If you look at the ruling class in 18th century France or right before the Byzantine empire collapsed, they were basically out to lunch thinking everything would persist as it had for generations before and got slaughtered for it. Even in American culture look at our media. It still attempts to be family safe with FCC guidelines from generations ago and portrays the lifestyles of nuclear families on network television--a family structure that generally does not exist in our actual culture anymore because the current generation of young people isn't bothering to start families. Our family laws were designed to help an old hag who lost her husband of 30 years during a time when women were rarely in the workforce and needed some government intervention to get money. This structure of alimony and forced transfer of wealth is obviously out of touch with what's happening now where women can generally get money more easily than men. Our current dilemma is that none of this has changed even though it has ceased to be useful for men and incentivized women to cheat the system by getting free money through divorce, welfare, child support, student loans, and pretend jobs.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of this changing anytime soon as the mainstream political parties are either going to keep beating the drum of free money for women through current policies, or appeals to morality, religion, and turning the clock back to the 1950s. Neither solution is feasible long-term, and most people aren't waking up to this fact.

My only hope is that the generation of men who are now in their 20s and 30s will make many of our red-pill ideas politically relevant, which will spur reform in the areas mentioned. However, I'm not too optimistic considering the political process is fairly rigged, and what most of us think or want isn't nearly as important as lobbying behind closed doors.

TL;DR - we're basically fucked because the ruling class has their heads buried in the sand and most people are living in the past, not the present reality.

^^

Talk show host Dennis Prager put this eloquently: "Liberals are still fighting the battles of the '60s and '70s." It is a different world. You see this in the "Ban Bossy" campaign. They still think it's 1972.

Not to get all doom and gloomy on everyone, but at some point something has to give. Without getting into specifics, there's too many people consuming too many resources, the future is grim regardless. From reading the comments in this thread I can tell people are disappointed at a potential regression in America and possibly the world. But how much further could we realistically progress to? We've basically conquered our base needs. There's really no more room to grow (metaphorically and physically), things need to shrink in many aspects of the world we currently live in. Look at how much population has grown and how much it's estimated to grow (I understand that these numbers aren't exact and there's some debate on them, but I'd wager the general point still stands):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

So with the current American conditions, and to some extent, world conditions, things were bound to start getting shitty. This doesn't mean you can't make the most of YOUR life, but in essence, it's a waste of your energy to be concerned about the greater issues we're facing as a society as a whole. Adapt and overcome. Life's short guys, do what you can with it.

(03-15-2014 01:09 AM)Samseau Wrote:  What all of this means, for the average man, his following choices are keeping on top of his game to fuck young sluts, or if he wants kids his choices are mostly limited to women entering their late twenties or older. These are pretty miserable choices and yes it does make leaving the country seem more appealing, but sometimes I wonder if going to a different country is merely replacing one set of problems with a different set of problems?

Good point re. replacing the problem with others when moving. Or maybe just a delayed set of problems with a few different quirks depending on
location. I have little travel experience outside the US, so I'm basing this on what Roosh has written in the last few years seeing the western
influence slowly taking hold on places he visits.

Excellent discussion guys.

I meant to get this link into the mix last night as I think it helps shed a little different light on what we're trying to wrap our heads around within this thread as well as the related post by Roosh.

It's a breakdown of the book Never Have I Ever: My Life (So Far) Without a Date by Katie Heaney

Millennial memoirs #1: Superficiality

Quote:From age 5 to 20, the only thing she notices about boys is whether they are cute, hot, beautiful, dreamy, adorable, sexy, etc. It is the only thing that attracts her to a boy, and it is the only aspect about them where she notices details — eye color, hair color and style, height, tanned or not, which celebs they resemble, and so on. She also recalls how they dressed — sweatpants, sideways hat, emo earrings, etc. To reiterate: what she notices about boys does not mature at all from kindergarten to senior year of college.

Quote:Girls also used to notice physical states about a guy that were not generic enduring traits like hot, sexy, etc., but were mannerisms and idiosyncrasies. The way they stand, or sit, the way their voice comes out, or how it sounds in different contexts, how they fuss around with their hair, or whatever. The things that make him, him. There is absolutely no detail about these things, as though she didn't even observe them in the first place. It's like being color-blind — only identity-blind. She is numb to any sign of distinctiveness about the guys she sees. They are just cartoon cut-outs of the pattern "random hot guy."

Quote:When you think about it, though, only noticing the most superficial aspects of other people is a childish trait. Fourth grade girls can go crazy over what Justin Bieber looks like, and give clear details about what they like, yet they couldn't begin to give a good character portrait. You need more social experience and connections during adolescence to be able to pick up on those parts of a person, and to articulate them.

Quote:Since Millennials are more infantilized than other generations, they only pick up on superficial qualities in other people, they don't have much of an honest sex drive, and they have a bratty self-regard that leads them to dismiss connecting with others, who are all so totally not worthy.

Quote:It's important to bear in mind that Heaney is not a stuck-up cheerleader type, or whatever you might imagine her as, given how superficial she is. She's a socially awkward goody two-shoes, who holds intermission every once in awhile to deliver a feminist manifesto. Somehow those traits support each other, though — like if you fundamentally do not trust or value men, you block out all of the things that make them human and reduce them to their surfaces, indeed going further to treat all hot guys as only slightly different carbon copies of the Platonic hot-guy essence.

Society in general has always been rather insufferable. It may be worse now, but it wasn't really that much better "back in the day", regardless of what you read. Maybe it was during WW2 when women actually did outnumber men.

Women simply have too many options, it's really that simple. If this was reversed, we wouldn't see things going the direction they are.

^ la_mode, spot on.

Bear with me gentlemen.
This just flashed into my head as I read through the thread here, which has seen a host of outstanding contributions. I’m going to put this down not as my gospel on the matter, but as a perspective to consider.

(03-14-2014 11:13 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  In a way, I view women as as much (and in some way) bigger victims of feminism than men.

Fucken. ay.

(03-16-2014 01:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Fact is... most women don't give a shit about the future. As long as they have money, they don't care at all.

I think they are hardwired for this. Security for the nest, and this is being exploited, big time.

Feminism has removed the need for provisioning to be a feature of a relationship. Think about how socially repulsive it would be for a woman to work a job, live in a flat with other women (or men) as “housemates” and bang random blokes on the weekend 50 years ago. Unheard of, ostracisation would have been immediate, swift and brutal.
That is business as usual today.
For that to become a reality it needed to become free of social persecution and they needed to be able to raise the capital to run the economics of a life: Rent, bills, etc.

Enter Feminism.

There is some old world throwback, girls still wanting men with coin, but that is now optional. The whole beta provider thing is dead in the water, removed from the equation as a given. It’s taken away a lot of men’s bread and butter in the sexual market place, the waves are just hitting the shore.

Women are pair bonded to the state, not just directly through welfare, but through its means to clear the way for them to earn and move through the world as independent economic units, (lets take one example of many: Board quotas).

It’s long been a theory of mine that women funnel their sexual energy towards that which is ensuring their physical survival, as a means of providing for their children, establishing a nest, etc.
Usually this would be their male sexual partner. I reference this to Roosh’s post today (http://www.rooshv.com/its-the-boner-stupid), why do you think all this careerism shit kills boners? I put to you because their sexual energy is going elsewhere. There is no juice in the vibe, it’s all flat and so are our dicks. Our dicks are the truest barometers we have, you cannot dupe our dicks.

It’s going towards those that provide for them: The corporation they work for, the state, or to be more specific, the entities that run the state. The ones that provide for them. It’s energy harvest, pure and simple. It’s not going to men to build a family unit that produces solid, uninfluencable, well adjusted children, that are largely unimpressed by your tattoos and iphones.

The state protects it’s investments somewhat, so there are no consequences as Samseau says, no material consequences to speak of. Like a Mare being put out to pasture.

There is a huge human cost, that most of the other side here is flagging. This does not grate well on the soul, the loss of fulfilment is huge, but it’s not given weight until its far to late. This is one of the greatest swindles of our time. Women are bearing the brunt, we ain’t getting out unscathed either.

The evolution as I see it is that relationships and connections with women, should you want them (and for sections of our development we don’t) beyond sex need to be about something else, as economics and survival has now been taken off the table.

(03-17-2014 02:57 AM)la_mode Wrote:  Women simply have too many options, it's really that simple. If this was reversed, we wouldn't see things going the direction they are.

Yes, the ratio of men to women has a huge effect. Supply and demand. For most of human history there have been almost constant wars killing lots of young men. The Pax Americana since WWII has meant we don't need to worry about being killed on the battlefield, but women have become increasingly insufferable.

It's likely that women will remain insufferable until either the economy collapses or lots of men die in a war or revolution.

I did an online experiment recently in which I told a bunch of young women that they could improve their chances with men by becoming more feminine: have long hair, be a healthy weight, wear dresses and skirts, don't get tattoos or be promiscuous, learn to cook, support your man in his mission, keep his belly full and balls drained.

Most of the guys agreed with me but all the women became hysterical and angry. They feel entitled to commitment from desirable men without any obligations on them whatsoever. When reality hits, they blame men rather than take personal responsibility for their terrible choices.

My temporary plan to deal with this delusion: lift heavy weights, pursue my purpose, make lots of money and migrate ASAP to greener pastures in South America, Eastern Europe and SE Asia to find feminine women.

Ultimately patriarchy needs to be restored - which is very unlikely to happen until there's a major war or economic collapse.

Yes, there are. Having beta losers to commit to them is like us having a stream of fatties to fuck us: There is no true happiness in that and that's why they whine about "no good men left".

Also they are perfectly aware of the social consequences but they choose to seek or ignore them and rationalize everything.

(03-17-2014 05:39 AM)Ollave Wrote:  The evolution as I see it is that relationships and connections with women, should you want them (and for sections of our development we don’t) beyond sex need to be about something else, as economics and survival has now been taken off the table.

I wonder if this a good thing or a bad thing. I think both, perhaps. It must've somewhat unfulfilling for our dads to know our mothers' main attraction to the them was that he was her meal ticket. That if she had her own money, she'd be gone. And of course, that is what has happened in so many societies. If you are with a woman who earns her money, chances are she's with you because you give her something else - make her feel a certain way, or share certain cultural values she wants to pass on to her offspring. On the other hand, because women are fickle, child-like creatures, there is the rather large possibility that in a few short years she'll reverse course and want you OUT of her life. When you have children with her, this poses a slew of complications.

I guess I'd be OK with the "new order", with women becoming doctors and lawyers and having their own cash, if it were merit based. What I really resent is the state putting its thumb on the scale, through affirmative action, ruinous child support and alimony - all of these are just ways to subsidize the vast majority of women who can't really compete with men.

(03-16-2014 04:06 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 03:01 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  TL;DR - we're basically fucked because the ruling class has their heads buried in the sand and most people are living in the past, not the present reality.

^^

Talk show host Dennis Prager put this eloquently: "Liberals are still fighting the battles of the '60s and '70s." It is a different world. You see this in the "Ban Bossy" campaign. They still think it's 1972.

When I was out for St. Patrick's Day tonight to eat away from the crowd for a bit, I had some older guy (in his 60s) and his wife sitting next to us. He was putting Crosby, Stills, and Nash, on the touchtunes trying to act like a badass and telling everyone else they will love it (it was obviously some slow shit that would put anyone with a pulse under the age of 50 to sleep). After that, a song from Nirvana's Nevermind comes on and the guy starts flipping shit and giving everyone dirty looks. This song is fucking 23 years old and this guy has no idea what's going on. Note that people like this are most likely to cast votes in America and contribute to political campaigns.

Honestly, after the post I made yesterday and seeing this shit today I'm fucking disgusted that these delusional old fuckers are still basically running the country even though they've been culturally absent for 25 or 30 years. They are probably our biggest barrier to any kind of cultural or social change because they think the rest of the world and younger generations should think exactly the way they do instead of realizing what's been going on around them. I have no sympathy for them and can't wait for the reaper to take them away.

The Father wrote:

"It must've somewhat unfulfilling for our dads to know our mothers' main attraction to the them was that he was her meal ticket. That if she had her own money, she'd be gone....If you are with a woman who earns her money, chances are she's with you because you give her something else - make her feel a certain way, or share certain cultural values she wants to pass on to her offspring."

No. I want to dispel this myth having lived it. This is actually something feminists go around saying so I'm surprised someone brought it here.

When you become a "meal ticket," so to speak, you feel better about yourself. Not because a woman is with you for your money, but because she's with you because you're accomplishing something.

Being a man is not like being a woman. Women are. Men do. Men build the world. And no matter what you do, if it's honest work and a woman values that, she is valuing your true manhood. It feels better.

My own story: I was 25 or so when I began dating one of the IT managers at work, whom I later married. She was older, earned three times more than me and was with me because I was nice-looking and we shared tons of "common values."

It felt awful. I felt like a useless "pretty boy." Ten years later I was a nationally-known writer making radio appearances and getting asked on TV. Having her see me through that lens felt good. I was the one making payments on everything and that worked for me better. I never would have imagined this at 25. I liked her being impressed with what I did a zillion times more than because I was "cute."

Why is it this way? Because since the dawn of time, men hunted and built, while women depended on them for survival. No amount of "earning her own money" will ever change the fact that humans are most comfortable with this basic arrangement. Women need to need men, in other words, and men need to be needed. Bonds form out of mutual obligation -- the ones that form from convenience are not bonds at all, which is why they're easily broken.

Women talk the big talk, but I've noticed as soon as the snowstorm hits, they're on Facebook begging for men to get the power supply going and clear the streets. This is a metaphor for our personal lives, like it or not. Women will never be the ones to do that (much less build it) and men will never be the ones asking them to.

I believe this is hardwired -- like women wanting taller men and men wanting younger women. No amount of feminism or media manipulation will change it.

Anyone else see this CNN article about a fat woman losing 90lbs for her military husband and surprising him when he came back?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/health...?hpt=us_c2

High 5 to that chick for doin it. The article makes it look so easy what she did. But the guy still eats his ice cream and cake. The problem is that too many dudes in this country just accept obesity as a part of life...

If my wife made such an improvement, I would give up the cake for awhile to show my support...

I'm actually becoming more optimistic about the future, although I fear it may be after I'm dead and buried.

More and more men will get pissed off. As they get more and more pissed off, the anger will go somewhere. The anger will most likely go against the white knights, if there are any left. When white knights see this anger, they will retreat and give up in a heart beat. They're pretty much cowards to begin with. And when the white knights retreat, feminism will collapse in a heartbeat.

We're already seeing the anger with the Tom Ball incident. We will see more of those.

Our culture is going 213mph on a 96mph road.

GBFM's "One cock rule" says it all:

In the DR I think its pretty much every woman for herself.

So many starving single moms here....

If they put every man in DR in jail for not paying child support, the streets would be half empty....