Dalrock, a manosphere traditionalist with a great love of charts and statistics and other accoutrements of SCIENCE, has managed to figure out a way to stretch “don’t be so picky, ladies, or you’ll get old and ugly and no man will ever want you” out to 1500 words.
Here are a few of them:
Men foot the searching costs in the marriage and sexual marketplace (MMP & SMP). This means bearing most of the risk of rejection and expending the bulk of the resources to facilitate the process of meeting and getting to know one another.
Oh dear. We’re off to a very unpromising start here.
As the ones who bear the costs of courtship, men have a strong incentive to minimize the number of women they court and the overall duration of time spent in the process. However, as the consumers of courtship, women have an incentive to draw the process out as long as possible and to receive courtship from as many men as possible.
Here’s some surveillance footage of an average American woman being courted by several men.
But now — get this — the ladies are waiting longer to marry!
Just think about what this does to the dude navigating the marriage market hoping to “maximize his Pareto efficiency,” if you know what I mean and I think you do.
He needs to manage risk vs reward. When courting, there are two fundamental risks. These are the risk of wasting resources on the wrong women, and the risk of rejection harming the man’s reputation/MMV.
So watch out, ladies, because if you wait too long, guys are going to decide you’re not much of a bargain!
For a man who is managing the risks of courtship outlined above, the age of a woman is very important. The older a woman is, the more likely it is that she is very picky and/or not seriously looking for a husband.
Exactly! Because women never change their mind because they’re, you know, in a different stage of their life or anything.
Older women also are less attractive from a courtship perspective because they have used up more of their most attractive/fertile years, and while their attractiveness for marriage has declined their expectations for courtship have only increased.
This reminds me of that famous joke, you know, where that woman approaches Winston Churchill at a party and says, “Sir, you are drunk.”
And he replies: “And you, Bessie, have used up your most attractive/fertile years. But I shall be sober in the morning, and you will still have used up your most attractive/fertile years.”
That Churchill, what a card!
Consider the 25% of current early thirties White women who still haven’t married; unless they are terminally unattractive an awful lot of courtship has almost certainly been wasted on them.
Are there really a lot of guys who look back on the women they dated in their twenties and think, “boy, I wasted a lot of courtship on those gals! I mean, I wasted nearly 14 courtship on Jessa alone!” (Also, who knew that the women are always the ones to blame when heterosexual couples in their twenties break up?)
They aren’t just bad bets for courtship today, but (in retrospect) they clearly were bad bets for courtship for the last 15 years. …
Put simply, the extended delay of marriage by women has placed marriage minded men in a dilemma; older women are (generally speaking) known bad bets for courtship, but half of early twenties women are also poor bets for courtship.
Well, you could always marry a dude.
There are only two logical ways men can respond to women’s extension of courtship.
Wait, really? Please, please, please, let one of the ways be “marry a dude.”
The first logical choice is to recognize that these women are debasing marriage, and decide to “court” for sex and not marriage.
Damn. Anyway, sexual relationships are fine, but you are aware that there are other kinds of relationships — sorry, “courting” — besides sex and marriage, right?
Ok, we still have one more. Marry a dude. Marry a dude. Marry a dude.
But while “courting” for sex is a logical choice, it is not a moral choice, and we still do see men courting for marriage. For these men, having a fairly low age cutoff makes a great deal of sense.
That’s your, er, “solution?” Marry a teenager? Or a woman at most in her early twenties?
As Dalrock knows, but doesn’t want to believe, those who marry when they’re very young are much more likely to divorce than those who marry when they’re older. For evidence, see this chart, which I found elsewhere on Dalrock’s own blog:
But hope springs eternal for modern misogynistic manospherian marriage market minded men (MMMMMMM).
Interesting. To me what’s interesting here is that the commenter is apparently Catholic, because in Protestantism, marriage is not, in fact, a sacrament.
So right there, you actually have said something many Christians do not ascribe to. Are protestants ruining society too, or is it just feminists?
I’d bet my boots he’s an evangelical. He talks like one and repeats a lot of their favorite talking points. Marriage isn’t a sacrament to evangelicals (obviously, because they don’t have sacraments), but to complementarians, marriage is really important. More important than it is to Catholics in some ways, because they don’t recognize celibacy as an acceptable alternative lifestyle (except for gays, maybe). I think it’s because, once you’ve defined the whole natural order of the world as revolving around a man dominating a woman, you have no place in it unless you have a woman to dominate, or a man to be dominated by.
Could be. My point was mainly that chuckles the bonehead couldn’t theologize his way out of a damp paper bag, and doesn’t seem to even understand the words he uses, much less any theology more advanced than what you’d get from a third-grader who went to Sunday school one time.
Actually, the third-grader would probably know more.
WORDS MEAN THINGS, chuckles.
Oh, for sure. His theology consists of half a dozen canned arguments, and he ignores or discounts anything that doesn’t fit them.
Good call, David. That guy was insufferable.
I’ll refrain from commenting too much on the WTFery that happened while I was asleep, seeing as others have already handily deconstructed it, and the flounce has become mandatorily stuck to.
But I do have to say that I literally laughed out loud when he literally reverted to a human incarnation of the sea lion comic (“I have been nothing but polite…”)
If someone slaps you on the right cheek, sealion them.
Everybody on this thread who is not IBB is awesome.
According to my very Roman Catholic MIL, yes. 🙂 But she loves us all anyway.
Also, I can’t get over the moment when IBB tried to divide and conquer the thread by playing favorites and telling everyone that Kirby deserved special treatment because she (snort) was being so polite. He really did think everybody was either going to throw a tantrum or fall all over themselves to win his favor, didn’t he?
Must be nice to live in his world. When it’s not rage-inducing, disappointing, and hollow, that is.
Reflecting on this thread, I think no fault divorce is so horrifying for him because he knows how awful he is and he’s afraid that when his wife realizes she can do better, there will be nothing he can do legally to force her to stay.
I just hope he doesn’t use violence.
@Flying Mouse:
The best part for me was two-fold. One, how condescending he was when he declared that I was getting “special treatment,” as if civil conversation were a pat on the head and a piece of candy given to a child. Two, that his “special treatment” was him putting my name as the address and quoting my comments while still just repeating himself over and over.
Really makes a boy feel special, that.
Aww I somehow missed all this when it happened. It was a fun and infuriating read though. I can never quite understand how some people can think they’re being perfectly polite while literally demanding for others to be slaves.
Dalrock is actually NOT a Christian. He doesn’t attend church regularly (or at all, from what he’s said). He likes to quote the Bible, without living out its teachings in his life. He concerns himself with what other women say and do without concerning himself on what he can do to help others be better.
He has a habit of fisking women who write something online he does not agree with, or they have criticism over the manosphere. He has gone after women from Sheila Gregoire to a SAHM/housewife who likes to blog about religion and gives away rosaries. He clearly has nothing better to do. No…he doesn’t like the idea of women having their own opinions, no matter who they are. For men who tout “male traditionalism,” they sure spend a lot of time on the internet blogging about how men feel and it’s like…don’t you people have jobs?
As a Christian, I find all of this “traditionalist” “manosphere” stuff to be a load of crap sky-high stinking up outer space. I have wasted enough time reading Dalrock to know he’s not really aligned with Christianity. Has anyone noticed something about his entourage? They’re all a bunch of single and bitter men who clearly are angry about the “one who got away” with a guy who had it. By “it” I mean an iota of self-confidence no amount of “Game” can teach anyone.
@ Maea
Dalrock IS a Christian. God commands a woman to SUBMIT, not rebel. It is YOU who is NOT a Christian. Obey or stray (narrow path)
Mikey, is that you? How are things DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH?
Today in trolldom I have learned that following one ‘command’ that is only loosely supported by three verses in the entire bible makes you a shining example of Christianity, even if you ignore about 80% of the other things about how to live life.
Wow.
That’s like, awesome! I’m so glad we got to do away with all that hippy ‘love thy neighbor’, gather in worship, and doing things in remembrance stuff. Super cool, that.
Warning, last post contained ‘sarcasm’.
Michael,
The lineage of Jesus as described in the Bible is full of scheming whores and rebellious women without whom there could not have been an anointed savior for mankind. For a God who was so supposedly consumed by the idea of female submission, he sure did make sure the women entrusted with creating the bread, the light, the word and the way were a bunch of uppity women.
Read your Bible. Then remember this: A creator god could have spun himself a demigod son out of dust or a puddle. Instead, the Bible god chose a woman. He could have hatched him from an egg or the head of a prophet, but instead the only human being the Bible describes Jesus as ever being physically intimate with besides a whore (who he he seems to have lived with) was his mother. Peter never gets down on his knees and massages Christ’s feet. Paul never even actually meets a physical Jesus. In fact, the woman at the well was more of an apostle than Paul. Jesus instructed that “fallen” woman to go forth and spread the gospel. Paul just had a heat stroke and a guilty conscience. He’s also a large part of why there is so much misogyny in the New Testament.
It is also men who betray Jesus and women who stay with him to the bitter end. The most vulnerable moments in the life of a god were entrusted to women, according to the Bible. Women who defied authority and lived unconventionally were closer to your god than any man ever was.
Yes, the Bible contains heavy doses of misogyny. Yes, Christianity is a patriarchal religion. But it well might not have been had men not worked so hard to make it so. The first Christian nurses were deaconesses who made house calls. They were women who visited the homes of the ill and the old to care for the flock as Christ had done. Today you won’t hear of many female deacons, but at one time, they were integral to the Christian community. To this day churches survive on women’s unpaid labor. When the women walk, you church falls. So, you might show some fucking respect before you have to answer to your lord for driving them away.
I’m atheist, but I can read. Can you?
@Michael
I am a Christian. If Dalrock was such a Christian, why isn’t he more theologically sound? Why is he a huge supporter of “game” and why does he back the agenda of MRA/manospherians more than that of Christianity? Why doesn’t he use Christian tradition or scriptural references to support his reasoning?
If you knew anything about the word “submit,” it means to be “under mission.” This “under mission” was directed to wives for their husbands, not for every woman to follow every man’s whim (and hope there was no conflict as a result). Wives were designated to be a “helper suitable” for a husband, and what Dalrock has been preaching is not consistent with Christian teaching.
I don’t entirely agree with Lea, but the response is a lot smarter and more well-reasoned than yours.
@ Maea
I completely agree with you. …….Dalrock may call himself a Christian, but he definitely is not. His extreme misogyny, hatred of women, and his endorsement of “game” shows me where his heart is
I stumbled upon his blog at WordPress, read a few of his garbage, and never returned….by the way Dalrock blocks and deletes ALL comments that doesn’t endorse “game”, or the patriarchal viewpoint he espouses, which in my opinion makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.
On the one hand he condemns all SJW’s, and Feminists, yet he is intolerant of any criticism at all!
Dalrock’s opinions are definitely NOT biblical, they are poisonous and divides the sexes even further