>
 |
| If you don’t have one of these, you’re screwed. |
The good fellows at the Happy Bachelors forum have gone all survivalist on us. Well, a bunch of them have. Some are posting tips on gracious postapocalyptic living: did you know that you can only safely drink your own urine once or twice in an emergency, because it gets more concentrated with nasty bad stuff as you get more dehydrated? The More You Know.
Others are speculating on what it all means for men like them, and the ladies they think are filthy whores.
Like a lot of those who’ve convinced themselves that the end is of civilization is near, our Happy Bachelors seemed kind of stoked at the notion of everything going to shit. Because, you see, clear-sighted, no-nonsense dudes like them will obviously thrive in the tough new environment, while wimpy females and those who love them will be forced to beg for scraps from their new MGTOW overlords.
The perhaps appropriately named recluse sees some hope in the economic collapse of towns like Flint Michigan:
[E]xtreme social poverty … will end frivolous bullshit like catering to the feminists or princess mentality ball busting bitches.
Apparently when mens jobs get harder they begin to get more efficient and genuinely self protective.
This is how manginas can be transformed on a wholesale basis.
Wholesale transformation? Uh oh. I don’t know exactly what recluse is getting at here, but it doesn’t sound good for the manginas of the world.
Still, there is hope for you, ladies.! Well, for some of you. Not many, I’d guess. To be perfectly honest, ladies, if you’re reading this blog here, you’re probably not on the list.
As boogyman explains, after the shit hits the fan,
Quality wives, widows, and virgins will be looked after by good men just like in the Biblical days. Thug lovers, welfare mothers, and feminists will have to fend for themselves (Daddy government will be MIA). The laws of the jungle will sort everything out in short order.
So get that last bit of thug-loving in, gals, while you still have a chance.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>> My feeling is that if it takes dire poverty to prove yourself, there's nothing stopping you from giving up everything you have to live in poverty. You don't have to wait until the end of the world. In defense of MGTOW, that's exactly what some of them advocate, although it's generally based on the bizarre rationale that by not earning enough to pay taxes, they're going to deprive our evil feminist communist gummint of the revenue it needs to, you know, continue being evil.
>Captain Bathrobe, Damn you! I can't be laughing like that in the office. It will make my co-workers suspect that I'm wasting time commenting on blogs or something…plus, you almost got coffee all over my computer screen.
>@Captain Bathrobe – I'd like to chime in as well – it has been fairly well established both through historical research and through anthropological observation of extant hunter-gatherer tribes, that with a few notable exceptions (the Inuit, for example, the vast majority of them…… HAD DIARRHEA!!!HA HAAAA!!
>Well, there was probably more than one cause for the diarrhea, like chronic infestation by parasites, lack of sanitation, unclean sources of drinking water, etc, etc, and so on and so forth. No reason to scapegoat the berries. Also, it is pretty likely that if a hunter was out hunting and saw some awesome food stuffs just lying around they would transition quickly to gathering. Because tasty food knows no arbitrary gender divisions.
>My understanding, though I admit I don't know much about this stuff, is that women were generally gatherers and not hunters because they were pregnant and/or dealing with babies pretty much constantly. Hard to sneak up on a mammoth carrying a colicky baby.
>I'm an archaeologist. Berries and veggies were absolutely important parts of the hunter-gatherer diet. Dependence solely on meat in most environments will maim you from malnutrition pretty quickly, and being maimed as a hunter-gatherer is basically a death sentence unless you have other people around to help you out. Hide and Seek, you're only partially right. The levels of disease that we might expect to see today do not really translate back to the world when everyone was a hunter-gatherer. The compactness of modern people has increased the ability of things like parasites to spread. Basically, imagine knowing only 100 people in your whole entire life, and spending the biggest part of your life with only about 20 of them, while simultaneously being able to move to a new, basically pristine area whenever the area you are in gets particularly nasty. Not saying that there was no disease but that there was far less of it than we have today.David, no, absolutely not. If women were constantly pregnant and/or dealing with babies, nothing would have ever gotten done. Which is not to say that women were more important than men or that they did more than men, but that the dudes couldn't just leave their Quivering brood at home while they went off to hunt a mammoth, leaving the ladies to somehow wrangle 50 children while also trying to do basic things like process that mammoth for present and future consumption. If women had too many babies, they probably resorted to infanticide (because it is better to spare a baby than to no longer exist as a tribe, which is what it could come down to at times). Other than that, hunter-gatherers weren't completely ignorant about the process of sex and probably had poultices to block the cervix and a knowledge of herbs that could help prevent pregnancy or induce abortion, as well as social norms around abstinence that both men AND women followed.
>thewhatifgirl: Ah. Well, I think I got those ideas from a book that was twenty years old, so thanks for the info. Of course my favorite speculative topic about ancient humans is the 10,000 year (or whatever it was) overlap when there were both neanderthals and cro magnons. Did they, you know, get it on? Did the neanderthals look at the cave art of the cro magnons and say to themselves, dammit, how come when I draw a buffalo it doesn't come out all cool like that? Why can't I get my spearheads as sharp as those cro magnons? Fucking stuck up snobs with their pointy spears and their fancypants buffalo drawings.
>@DavidActually, I'm pretty sure the various varieties of humans were interbreeding…and upon checking, Wikipedia, the infallible Source, confirms this to be true. (Link)And, I agree. I always liked fiction about that sort of thing, too. I think I recall one such novel that involved interactions with a tribe of pre-homo-sapien humans of the 'aquatic ape' sort. Can't remember anything else about it, though. …in before Scarecrow posts another 'zing' based on whatifgirl's "berries and veggies"
>I believe Ozzy Osbourne is part Neanderthal, as are a lot of people of European descent. Also, I thought the current theory was that we chased our food down until it basically died of exhaustion…?
>"Considering MRAs almost never identify as Alphaholes, their little fantasy seems just sad. Like a toddler stomping a foot and saying, "You'll be sorry.")"And why they're against abortion, but also against paying child support. It's basically "I don't want to be a responsible adult, mommy. YOU do it for me!"There's a reason that their idea of a "quality wife" is basically a mother they can have sex with.
>Heh, yeah, I'm married to a man who is part Neanderthal. He even has a brow ridge. Here's a more reliable source for the interbreeding idea, though lots of archaeologists still don't accept it: http://www.archaeology.org/1007/etc/neanderthal.html Well, Cro-Magnons are Homo sapiens sapiens just like us, and lived alongside Neanderthals for up to 40,000 years in some places. But Neanderthals really weren't as stupid as they've been portrayed – they actually had slightly larger brains, for instance. I'm working on a study right now where one of the things I'm trying to figure out is if they were smart enough to have complex floor plans like Homo sapiens sapiens did. And Homo sapiens sapiens didn't start making art (that we know of) in any sort of impressive amount or style until the time when Neanderthals were dying off. So as much as I hate to burst your comical bubble, Neanderthals were really almost just like us other than their slightly different anatomy. The idea of Neanderthals as bumbling brutes is all Victorian racism/speciesism.But now that I've gotten off of the original subject entirely, my point was that things like cooperation and a lack of division of labor were really important to hunter-gatherers, and they would be important again if there was an apocalypse which only a few people survived. A lot of issues would be different – for instance, we know about the possibilities of agriculture now, while simultaneously having paved over a large portion of good farming land here in the United States – but the basic ideas would be the same. And these doods' "Me first, last, and always" attitudes would get them exiled or outright killed pretty quickly.
>Also Neanderthals all had each other's memories, I know because Clan of the Cave Bear says so. Ok, I don't really know, but that is what the author says in Clan of the Cave Bear.
>Tomb Raider Elizabeth said… "That law of the jungle thing only works if you keep women away from the guns"Part of that law of the jungle thing is that guns are NOT indispensible self defense tools without cheap and ubiquitous ammo. But then what woman needs a gun?You all have no problem body slamming a guy nearly twice your weight. You prove it in the movies all the time.Feminism is only as good as the money and guns that back it up.That IS the 'law of the jungle'.
>Apparantly EWME believes in the truth of the old saying "God didn't make all man equal, Sam Colt did."So, the "law of the jungle" also excludes tool use and intellegent utilization of resources? I suppose he thinks the jungle looks works like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJu4haeubRo&feature=related (or does that involve too much skill application too?)
>Hi! New commenter here, just followed a link here and see there's a lot of enjoyable material!On survivalism in general: yes, groups win, individuals lose. And hey, not all men think that 'rigged individualists' are the heros; I'm a man, and I take (comic) offense at anyone here who says I have to believe in the lone-cowboy-with-a-gun survivalist myth! :-)Or, to use a better example: there are guys who are just as downright misogynistic as your favorite radMRA's, and who yet have the undeniable brainpower to understand that these lone survivalist types wouldn't last long in any half decent post-apocalyptic world. My favorite one is The War Nerd on the Post-Apocalyptic World: you don't get much more misogynistic than that, and yet he's smart enough to understand what really might happen to lone cowboys after the Fall.Great blog, by the way!
>I was just thinking about this hunter-gatherer thing: don't forget there were places called "oceans" and saltwater flats in those days. The gatherers weren't just pickin' berries. They were gathering mussels, clams, crabs and all sorts of protein-rich edibles. Also kelp, seaweed–you name it. A beach would have been quite a comfortable place to rest, and salmon were still plenty.