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).
Surely it should be gamma gerbil?
They’re just chi-dding with these names, aren’t they?
On the plus side, a sidekick MRA called David a “gamma rabbit”, please tell me that insult will catch on and replace “mangina”.
“Gamma Rabbit” is something Vox Day came up with, demonstrating yet again that like the Dipshit he is, he just throws around terms without understanding them.
The “Gamma” bit comes from their loony psycho-sexual babbling about “Alphas”, “Betas” etc which they think came from wolf-packs. Said science has since been revised, and further, they’re labeling someone who’s actually a success as a writer, a social success, and has a lovely wife, and a pretty amusing daughter as a “Gamma” – presumably because he treats women like people rather than pussy. Dipshit himself, of course, is a failure as a professional writer and socially, but labels himself an “Alpha”.
The “Rabbit” bit demonstrates even greater levels of ignorance, since it refers to a wild misapplication of r/K selection theory. “Liberals” are supposedly r-selected, and have masses of offspring they treat with little investment – “rabbits” – and “rugged individualists” are K-selected, and have few offspring on which they lavish attention – “wolves”.
Of course, all humans are K-selected, The theory doesn’t apply within a species, and even as a metaphor it fails – Scalzi himself has only one kid, whereas Dipshit has two.
Dipshit, by the way, is a climate change “sceptic”, an anti-vaxxer, and an evolutionary “sceptic” – while calling himself a self-diagnosed “genius”…
Remind me which side of the political spectrum believes in birth control, again?
::snicker:: You’d think blokes so obsessed with getting as much sex with as many women as they can would be pickier about their terms. Nobody says “at it like wolves”.
Excellent short film. I’d seen clips of it, but not the whole film. Thanks for sharing.
That shortie was lovely, thank you.
Kitteh — the sound isn’t needed, no, but the violin background is wonderful. And the end, she turned around when little Rosie cried, in case you were wondering.
“loony psycho-sexual babbling” can we not with the ableism?
David, Dalrock is a loving, happily married, Christian man. He is a good father to his children and he adores his wife. He is not (nor has he ever been) a misogynist. For the record, the men’s rights movements does NOT hate women. The men’s rights movements hates feminism. You are wrong about pretty much everything regarding MRAs.
LOL. This is almost cute.
Almost. Because the fact that you can read what Dalrock wrote and not see the misogyny reveals that you, too, are a misogynist, and that’s never cute.
@innocentbystanderboston,
Well that was boring. At least you didn’t rant forever without paragraph breaks like some trolls.
Right, the guy who said “the truth is that women and older girls left to themselves will collectively push to continuously redefine decency down in their efforts to compete for sexual attention.” isn’t a misogynist. Suuuuuure. http://www.donotlink.com/eray
Anyone who strips women down to their ability to bear children is a misogynist. Anyone who thinks of women in no terms whatsoever except sexual ones is a misogynist. Anyone who pretends that women have no characteristics at all other than uteri is a misogynist.
Leave aside the fact that erasing everything about women except their reproductive potential erases all women who are, for whatever reason, unable to bear children. That’s actually a really big thing to leave aside, and that alone would be a reason to call this misogyny. If you divide women into “good” and “bad” categories and dismiss the women in the “bad” category, you’re misogynist, no matter how many glowing things you say about the women categorized as “good.” If you’re misogynist against some women, you’re misogynist, period.
But leave that aside. It’s misogynist to boil a complex human being with a past, a future, hopes, dreams, desires, fears, and a complete personality down to a single physical trait just because that person is a women. That is, intrinsically, misogyny. Women are complete people who exist as complete people even if no men are around. Women are complete people who exist as complete people even if they never have children. People who can’t comprehend this are misogynist. Period.
You can’t be a misogynist if you marry a woman. You can’t be racist if you have a black friend. You can’t be a homophobe if your hairdresser is a gay guy. Everyone knows this!
bwahahaha!
IBB, darling, we know you are D-crock’s greatest worshiper, but that deluded ridiculousness won’t fly in the reality-based crowd here.
Okay, you state you hate feminism, which is about giving women equal rights and is comprised of mainly women (both cis and trans).
But that doesn’t make you a misogynist? Really?
“I don’t hate women! I just hate the fact that some of them want equal rights!”
So, to be specific, you hate it when women see themselves as people, or, better yet, people equal to you because apparently being male (or, to you, having a penis) makes you the best of the best, and no one else should be allowed to play with your toys.
Duly noted.
Hating feminism IS hating women. Because women are feminism’s prime movers, and its primary beneficiaries. If you don’t want women getting ahead in this world, or if you think they do so at the expense of men, you are by definition a misogynist. Period.
As for “loving” and “happily married”, etc., I have to wonder at that. Just because someone CLAIMS to be those things, doesn’t mean he IS those things. Clearly his viewpoints on women show him to be someone who has problems with the concept of love, probably shouldn’t be married, and wouldn’t know Jesus if the latter were to materialize right before his beclouded eyes.
The New Testament is full of stories about how people who make a big deal out of being righteous, telling everyone how awesome they are and how well they follow The Rules, are actually not followers of Christ.
One of my favorites is Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats. The people come before God in heaven, and Jesus separates them into the righteous (the sheep) and the unrighteous (the goats). The sheep/righteous are blessed in versus 35-36, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
The righteous are like, wait, have we met? I don’t remember ever seeing you before in my life. Jesus says, in verse 40, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
The unrighteous/goats are sent away, on the grounds that they didn’t do any of those things, and they protest that they never did that to Jesus and never would have. In verse 45, Jesus says, “Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
I’m interested in how this story squares with Dalrock’s belief that women are only good for their reproductive potential. Would he parse Jesus in those terms? Would he walk up to Jesus and say to his face, “If you can’t get a woman pregnant, we’re wasting our time on you”? Paul’s epistles make a lot of misogynist statements (although they aren’t quite as bad in the context of the culture in which he was writing), but Jesus never did. If Dalrock wants to call himself a Christian instead of a Paulian, maybe he should read some of the things Jesus said to and about women.
And?
Few espouse cruelty to those they like. Would his arguments get more profund if he was a bad father and a lousy husband? Would they be less profound? Is a statement like:
enchanced by the fidelity, loyalty, veracity, conscientiousness and general all-around delightful-husband-being that Dalrock no doubt performs every day? How many times does Dalrock need to throw baseball with his children and piggyback them around the house (I assume that’s what loving fathers do?) for it to be okay that he also believes women should always submit to their husbands and that Feminism is not only erroneous, it is antithetical to Christianity?
Whatever wonders he might do for his family (who I hope are happy!) and the people in his love (who I hope he brings joy!) and all the ones around him he interacts with every day (to which I hope he is a wonderful human being!) the fact of the matter ends up being that his stated words and professed ideology is atrociously misogynistic.
And being a nice dad don’t do a damn thing about that.
You are too kind, Fibinachi. An atrocious misogynist like D-crock is a not a good person and cannot possibly be a good father. After all, he transmits his hateful beliefs to his children, whether he intends to or not — and D-crock does (intend to), and even openly brags about it.
Many of us over at Dalrock’s (myself included) are happily married men who love their wives. I love my wife. She is everything to me. I just hate feminism. As a member of the MRM, I have identified the enemy of Christian society. That enemy is feminism. You can’t reconcile Christianity and feminism. Its impossible. They are completely at odds with one another. That doesn’t mean that I (or Dalrock, or anyone else who has eaten the “red pill”) hates women. How could we?
All women are not feminists. And all feminists are not women. We have many women that post at Dalrock’s and they hate feminism. They see that is ruins society.
Dalrock’s blog is right and good. There are way too many men over there who have been harmed (wounded) by their ex-wives who have used secular laws to destroy them (financially and spiritually), secular laws created by a government whose legislators were elected to empower feminism. That is a problem. And we have identified it. Feminism says that a wife can (at any moment, for any reason) divorce her husband and collect cash and prizes (alimony and child support.) Feminism says that a wife can (at any moment, for any reason, or no reason) call the police and lie to them about abuse that never happened and get a restraining order. Feminism says that a woman can have s-x with any man and force her husband (or even ex-husband) to support the child financially, a child that he could be ordered never to see. Feminism empowers all this behavior, rebellion against God and Christ. If you support feminism, you support all these things that destroy healthy families. You can not dispute that.
No thanks. I love my wife. But I hate feminism. David, you and your followers here are hunting the wrong mammoth.
“Feminism says that a wife can (at any moment, for any reason) divorce her husband and collect cash and prizes (alimony and child support.)”
” If you support feminism, you support all these things that destroy healthy families.”
If the family includes a wife who wants a divorce, I don’t think it is a healthy family. I think wanting a divorce is a pretty good reason to get a divorce.
And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Dalrock’s Blog: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess financial assets which the Lord sware unto thy fathers until feminism and secular laws steal it and fuck everything up.
Deuteronomy something:something
No it most certainly is not. It is only feminism that thinks so little of the sacrament of marriage (something that God created for us, something supposed to be sacred) and reduced it to nothing more than an “at will” contract that can be terminated at any moment by either party for any reason or NO reason. Feminism gave us that. Feminism also says that not only can one spouse divorce the other spouse at any moment for any (or no) reason, that the spouse divorcing should have the right to collect alimony (for life) and child support. These are cardinal virtues of feminism, something that you think is “pretty good.”
Its not good. In 1976, the first year the tracked demographics and marital rates, 72% of the people 18 and older, were married. As a result of these secular laws, marriage has been destroyed and (as of 2013) less than half of the adult population of the United States was married. Because of these feminist empowerment laws, there simply are no reasons for men to marry. All of the laws are against men, they have feminism to thank for that. So what you have is MGTOW. Google that. Women still desire marriage but because of feminism, they have basically, no offers. And it is getting worse, our marriage rate is dropping like a rock. You have entire communities in this country where marriage has been destroyed, it has ceased to exist. If you want to hunt a mammoth that truly hates women, hunt feminism. Don’t hunt Dalrock.
You’re interpreting the title of this blog in a really weird way.
Not really brooked. You are hunting women haters right? That is David’s “mammoth” is it not? That is the purpose of this blog? Okay, Dalrock does not hate women. He hates feminism. David made a mistake and linked two things that should not be linked. I contend it is feminism that hates women, not Dalrock.
The blog title pokes fun at men taking credit for unverified prehistoric accomplishments and using those as justification for present day misogyny. It’s not about hunting MRAs.