Today is the LAST DAY of the quarterly WHTM Pledge Drive! WHTM depends on donations to survive! If you appreciate the blog and haven’t donated yet, please click the button below. Thanks!
Is Return of Kings seriously suggesting that the best way to improve the lives of men today is to send a big chunk of them to die violent deaths in unnecessary wars?
It sure looks like it. In a post with the typically Return-of-Kingsy clickbait title “8 Factors That Are Destroying Healthy Relationships Between Men And Women,” regular RoK contributor Corey Savage seems to argue that the only way to restore the proper, er, balance between men and their naturally subordinate female companions is to kill off a lot of men.
Because we have “too few wars [and] too many men,” Savage declares, men have to work harder to impress women than they would if women dramatically outnumbered men. This “[e]xcess of men,” he complains. “means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low.”
So, crank up that war machine, I guess!
How, you may wonder, did Savage manage to arrive at this, let call it provocative, conclusion?
As Savage sees it, the “continuing transformation of our society” has led “something [to go] awry with the relationship between men and women.”
In the good old days, Savage argues, men and women had a wonderfully symbiotic relationship — much like we humans have with horses.
No, really. Horses.
All relationships work best when two parties have something different to share for their mutual benefit. For example, humans and horses have enjoyed a close relationship together throughout history (unlike, say, humans and bears). The relationship works because in exchange for food, protection, and care that humans provide, the horses offer themselves as transportation.
Men and women used to have a similarly healthy partnership. Men provided women with food and shelter and the women, er, let the men ride them, as it were.
The relationship between men and women was also mutually beneficial for the entirety of human existence with men offering their services in exchange for having the women bear their children.
But no longer! Gone are the days when men hunted the mammoth and did all those other nice things for their once-grateful womenfolk.
Men have always provided for women. Men hunted for food, labored to build everything, and fought battles to defend their tribe. To say that men oppressed women throughout history is an insult to all those who sacrificed themselves in the factories, the coal mines, and the trenches. If women didn’t have certain rights that feminists like to cherry-pick, it’s because women weren’t drafted to fight wars. In exchange for their toil, the only thing men asked of women was to be supportive in their roles as wives and mothers.
Then “equality” came around and ruined things by allowing women a choice in the matter.
[F]ast-forward to today, now that women have “achieved” social and political “equality” and even various advantages just for being born a female, many women today no longer feel that it’s necessary to exchange values with men for mutuality. It’s like when humans developed automobiles and didn’t need horses anymore.
Well, no, If we go back to Savage’s original horse metaphor, it’s as though the horses got jobs and could pay their own bills without having to give people any rides.
And this is deeply unfair to all the men who would really like to keep riding the women. “[M]en’s sexual desire—which is greater than that of females—is still alive and kicking,” Savage complains.
So what we have today is a situation where women have gotten their social equality while sexual inequality persists for men … .
Yep. Men and their long-suffering boners are oppressed by the fact that women can say no to sex without starving to death.
Western women, in particular, have been so thoroughly sold on the idea of status and consumerist orgy that they are no longer interested in relationships. More and more women today are delaying marriage (if not outright rejecting it). And when they do get married, they are using it as a means to trap men into donating their sperm and cash, only to bail out when they want to.
Meanwhile, Savage complains, these evil ladies have all become sluts, despite not being interested in sex with men, thus “diminishing the availability of quality women that men want to start a family with.”
And did we mention Big Daddy government? In the happier days of yore, Savage reminds us,
men form[ed] relationships with women by exchanging values, with his strength to provide and protect being his greatest asset.
But now women can just suckle from the teat of, er, Big Daddy government.
[T]he government (along with corporations and education system) fulfills those roles that men previously occupied.
And even when the men of today manage to cajole one of these modern females into marriage, these ungrateful ladies will falsely accuse them of domestic violence to get them out of the way, leading Big Daddy government to send along teams of “professional white-knights” — otherwise known as police officers — “to extort and arrest men who’ve been used up and thrown away by women.”
It’s just terrible, Savage complains, that “the government is increasingly monopolizing violence, one of the most important value that a man possesses.”
Is he actually complaining that men don’t get to beat up their wives and girlfriends any more? Savage is such a bad writer that it’s impossible to tell.
But let’s set aside this question for a moment, because it’s at this point that Savage gets to the whole kill-dudes-to-make-life-better-for-dudes argument.
Back in the days when men were men and women were horses, Savage tells us, the world was a much more violent place. And that was apparently a very good thing: “[T]he more violent the environment is, the more masculine men become,” Savage writes.
And the more conflicts and wars there are, the more the women depend on men—thus keeping the collective value of [the] male population high.
Alas, those happily violent days are gone now.
It’s no coincidence that Western societies have started to feminize as they endured decades of relative peace since the end of WWII.
Dude, you do realize that the US has been in five wars (and involved in countless other conflicts) since the end of WWII, right? Is the problem that not enough men died in these wars?
The lack of warfare also means that there are now more young men per woman (practically 1 to 1) than there normally would have been under a warring society.
Huh. I guess Savage really does wish more men had died. Of course, one of the reasons the more recent wars that the US has been involved in have been less deadly, at least for Americans, is that we’ve gotten better at treating war injuries. Damn those military doctors for saving so many lives!
Excess of men—who are also emasculated and feminized—means that the collective value of average men has dropped to a historical low, upsetting the balance of sexual marketplace in the process.
Maybe this is why all these manosphere guys are so gung-ho for Trump. He would definitely get us into more wars.
Savage wraps up his portrait of today’s insufficiently violent gyno-dystopia by complaining that women are getting fat.
Many Western women have been corrupted by our toxic materialist society. They are fatter, uglier, more narcissistic, more entitled, hedonistic, superficial, less faithful, and seem to think that having bitch attitude makes them hip.
Not only that but some of these fat ugly ladies aren’t interested in having constant sex with us guys!
Women can afford to stoop low because their sex drive isn’t the same as men’s, while they couldn’t care less for love and companionship when they’re too busy with their travels and careers.
WHY OH WHY DON’T THESE UGLY WOMEN WE HATE WANT TO BE WITH US?
And because of all the thirsty men, women’s collective sexual market value hardly suffers while the value of those who are merely average becomes inflated beyond their real value.
Clearly, we’re long overdue for a truly devastating man-killing war. Apparently. only the death of hundreds of thousands of men will make Corey Savage’s boner happy again.
Ain’t no misandrist like an anti-feminist.
And I find it funny (and rather telling) that Savage thinks that feminists are whiny, entitled bitches for daring to not let a man provide for them while giving them access to constant sex, letting their man beat them, and force them into being a house-slave and caretaker for their kids.
Like, how dare we refuse such a generous offer? [/sarcasm]
I know this is a stupid point to pick in this sea of wrongheadedness but it drives me up the wall these guys keep mentioning the coal mines when in some mines WOMEN were often the ones to crawl naked through dark tunnels to mine coal.
women need a car like men need a..horse?
Why is it that human history seems to only exist in two states (cave dwellers–post 20th century) with this weird expanse of nothingness in between.
Did we discover a group of time travelling, paleolithic reactionaries.
“We care about men! End the draft! No wait…”
*is actually pro war*
*sends men to war because it is MANLY and more dead men means more ladies for me*
Certain patriarchal societies, at least polygynous ones, do try to limit the number of men in the society. The Mormon fundamentalists have been abandoning boys for years to reduce competition for women.
If you view women as primarily sexual objects and you think sex is a scarce resource, then you’re going to view other men as competition. So it is a fundamentally misandrist attitude.
That’s enough internet blogging for the entirety of RoK their collective lifetimes now.
Two things: Mr. Savage has obviously never heard of the concept of a “gelding”; and he apparently thinks that childbearing isn’t hard work or dangerous to health. I am pretty sure Mr. Savage has not actually left his room in years.
False. Wild horses exist. Ever hear of mustangs? And Przewalski’s Horses?
Also, humans have existed without horses in a lot of different times and places. Some of them, quite pre-modern.
And if this dude had to scoop up after them in the street for a living, he’d be all for ending the “close relationship” with the horse.
Also: Women aren’t fucking horses, but this dude IS a fucking jackass!
False again! It’s because women were ASSumed to be “natural” slaves to the men. This even though we were/are simultaneously “too weak” to be soldiers. And yet, strangely, we’re never too weak to be raped as a tool of war!
How romantic! But false, just the same. People form relationships by getting to know one another and deciding if they like one another enough to keep it going. “Values”, at least in the mercantile sense that this idiot means, have nothing to do with that.
False again! Government has always existed, even in the mythical Golden Age of Men, but NEVER as an ersatz husband. And it was comprised mainly of men who fancied themselves kings, too!
“Lack of warfare”? WHERE? The world is full of shooting wars raging at this very moment.
And why is a 1:1 gender ratio a BAD thing, anyway? Nobody wants to be in a harem.
Just once, I wish these guys would make some economic sense with their “sexual marketplace” twaddle. But they never do, because sex is not a commodity. So, false again!
(And anyway: how is a man’s “sexual market value” calculated? Do men get assigned inane numerical values too, or is that just for HB10s?)
Behold yon field in which we grow our fucks. As thou canst see, ’tis barren!
This from a man writing for a site for men who don’t care for love and companionship either, because they’re too busy man-slutting around in foreign countries.
Or trying to, rather.
And not succeeding, either, if all the moaning and groaning is any indication.
Dude, the solution to that is right in front of you. The penis in your hand, as Paulie would say. If you whack off enough in private, you won’t be compelled to do it all over the Internets. Hint, hint!
Prior to the mid 20th Century, presumably the Halcyon Age to which Savage hearkens, more soldiers died of disease than enemy action. I think WW2 was the first war that wasn’t the case. At any rate, the modern medicine that turned that statistic around is what also stopped women from dying all the time in childbirth, so it’s sort of a wash. The past wasn’t a potential harem waiting to happen for would be philosopher kings, it was pretty much a crap shoot for everyone except the very privileged few.
Ahhh, it’s the good ol’ economic exchange model of human relationship. Always presented like it’s a cutting-edge idea, or something original that the writer created himself, or accepted fact, when it is none of those things.
That’s why Przewalski’s horse will regularly migrate out of its natural habitat and into human territory, find a human, and and nudge that human to offer itself as transportation in exchange for food and protection. Except that, y’know, that never happens because wild animals don’t “offer themselves” to humans in any capacity.
Y’know, there are communities in the US with a gross imbalance in the gender ratio, mainly due to over-incarceration of the young men of the community. We don’t have to speculate about how that would work in some hypothetical world in Savage’s imagination.
Interesting about how his imagined bygone days take an increased male death rate into account but not the increased female death rate from childbirth and occupational hazards. It’s almost like he thinks women of the past sat on their butts eating bon-bons all day and birthed babies by teleporting them outside the womb.
Horse power! Whoo!
I guess I have to ask, where does this leave the bronies? Won’t someone please think of the bronies?
Okay following this train of thought, if women have no need of men, and therefore no interest in us, why would a relative scarcity make the slightest bit of difference? There’s got to be demand for supply and demand to work.
Let’s see … failure of understanding economics, history, biology, and politics. I just need one more to hit “bingo.”
The problem isn’t that the value of men has dropped; it’s that women who can support themselves don’t settle for the first man that comes along. We wait for the ones that are worth committing to, and enjoy ourselves anyway if he never comes along.
Savage craves a world where even the most mediocre of men are at a premium (which is what he says women are now; he just wants it reversed) so that he can get the date he wants. And much of that was because a woman had no way to survive without men.
But it isn’t cave men days he wants. Likely women were quite busy and active in cave man days, foraging, cooking, and whatever else it took to survive. They weren’t sitting around watching soap operas. What he wants is the women who existed in the medieval period, but only those that were in the upper classes, because the lower classes had their women working right alongside the men. No one just sat around and waited for someone to take care of them. Of course, why expect his history to be any better than his knowledge of the present?
Want a woman to want you, dude? Start being a man of value. Don’t expect she should fall all over herself just because you exist in the male form.
Is this author extolling the virtues of a man beating up a woman?
Yes.
I’m sure that Corey Savage will be the first one to step up when the bullets and bombs start flying.
Oh wait, they already are, so I’m assuming that Corey is writing from Afghanistan or some other war-torn locale.
Ain’t this just a cacophany of stupid. Here’s the deal, shitwit, if men need to be under constant threat of death to be ‘masculine’, maybe that’s not the natural order of things. And, of course, he has no real understanding of how sex, history, economics, or socialization work. Exhibit A for the defense:
Materialism hit the United States on a mass scale in the latter half of the 1800s. Industrial Revolution, growth of the cities, the like. So, at what point between, say, 1888 (1st Sears catalogue) and now did women go from angelic kitchen waifus to bitchy hambeasts? Cos this timescale seems off… Exhibit B:
Does… does he think we already have sexbots? Otherwise this analogy makes no sense. Is Daddy Government giving out Sybians? Thanks Obama?
@iknklast
Yes! What he wants is the consort of the ruler, and he gets to be the ruler. King Savage.
Of course, he doesn’t want the misery — a cold, damp, drafty castle; plagues; his kingdom being overrun by another kingdom’s army; famines; or conspiracies against him (“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”).
Or the grown-up stuff — actual responsibilities and having to listen to his advisers.
This guy just wants a steady source of sex. But trade his current lifestyle of Cheetos, corn dogs, video games, and complaining bitterly about women (They hate sex, which they have too much of! They’re careerists and gold diggers!) on the Interwebz? Nah.
Um, is English Corey’s first language? Cause it doesn’t seem like it.
But I thought men only went to war because evil women made them? Now I learn that evil woman SJWs are stopping men from going to war and being all properly manly and shit. We women really are the worst!
Seriously. It really takes an astounding amount of privilege to call women narcissistic and entitled while you’re arguing that we should enter some more major wars so that a bunch of people can die on the off chance that you’ll get laid a little more.
I’d also like to point out that the Vietnam war, which killed off plenty of young men in their sexual prime coincided with the height of second wave feminism. So the theory that a major high casualty war will make women stop wanting rights is already falsified. Plus, even before that women weren’t exactly sitting around waiting to trade sex for protection during WWII. Some women joined the military. Many others worked manual labor jobs to support the war effort. I know less about what women did during the medieval times when men were going off to war constantly, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess they were taking on agricultural and craft work above and beyond what they already did in peacetime. They still had to eat after all.
Why are all MRAs exact clones of Prince Joffrey.
So, how many articles has this fucknut written about “THE END OF WESTERN CIVILISATION!!!”?
Because I’m pretty sure it’s difficult for any civilisation to continue if all the men* are dead.
*Of course, not all men produce sperm and not all people who produce sperm are men, but no keyboard-shitter from RoK would ever admit that.
@Imaginary Petal
Because they all think they’re royals.
Ironic hearing wardrum-thumping from guys who would probably wash out of basic training if they even got far enough for that.