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.
So….if, theoretically…Conan the Barbarian and his barbarian friends were to show up at the RoK treehouse and slaughter them all…
I don’t think anyone would be hearing lamentations from any women. Not even their mothers. In fact I’m 99.9999998% certain there would be not one brief lamentation whatsoever from women, other men, children, animals, plants or inanimate objects upon receiving the news of RoK ‘writers’ having been wiped out of existence. Whether it was barbarians, a meteor, a freak lawnmower accident, or the flu that brought it about.
Oddly enough that *would* accomplish the exact thing that Savage seems to want…a reduction in the number of men*. Win-win?
*the definition of ‘men’ being humans with a penis who happen to be RoK ‘writers’.
One of the story ideas I came up with involved not a World War, but a Global Civil War. The elites fail to deal with the increasing damage caused by climate change and inequality. This failure leads to radicalization of the populace, as polarized populations start splitting into increasingly militant revolutionary/reactionary factions. As tensions boil over in the least stable areas, the resulting knock-on effect destabilizes each neighbouring nation in turn.
I started coming up with that idea during the Bush administration. It was really just a means of getting to global pandemics and justifying the creation of furries as genetic barriers to disease and overpopulation. 😛
That said, watching Arab Spring become the Syrian catastrophe, the rise of ISIS, the waves of refugees bringing out the worst elements of European racism and xenophobia, and the domestic rise of Trump and the increasingly public acceptance of open white supremacy is starting to feel awfully close to that prediction.
I doubt this global civil war will result in cat-people though.
@Berdache: hence my “Jody” comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_cadence#.22Jody_calls.22
I have no idea if those cadences are still used or not as by modern sensibilities they’re really obnoxious.
@Ooglyboggles
That’s a shock. I can understand why you’re upset.
My advice is to breathe deeply, get a good night’s sleep (or at least lie down and rest), and be as positive as you can about the whole experience.
After you see the doctor, you can decide how to deal with what the doctor said and with your parents’ reactions to what the doctor said.
Good luck! I hope that your meeting with your parents and the doctor goes well.
Bina and Weirwood, you both hit the nail on the head and thoroughly expressed my many reactions to this incoherent piece of drivel by this morally bankrupt human stain of the Manosphere. Sometimes I wonder if these guys really believe this crap or are just going for shock value or some other weird strategy.
And thanks to Nequam for the “Jody” comment. You made me laugh!
I propose that instead of getting involved in a man-killing war we just cultivate a culture in which gay and bi people are supported and approved of by everyone. After all, if a pair of dudes shack up that’s two men dropped out of the competition pool in one shot, a much more efficient ratio than killing guys one by one. (Well yes this will also mean that lesbians would be more able to pair up but shhhhhh. These guys don’t believe lesbians are real anyway.)
Also gotta love the way that in these dudes fantasies about wars and apocalypses and what have you, they, of course, are never the ones that are going to die, but are instead the lords of the battlefield/wasteland, obviously.
This guy is absolutely right about everything. Women are rejecting men. Women are traveling and working. Women don’t need protecting from individual men because the government protects them. Women are uppity, don’t work at being attractive to men, and enjoy peace. Men need war to keep women dependent on them, but society seems to be moving on from incessant war.
And? This is a problem? This is liberation. I enjoy it when MRAs do get the picture and complain and see no reason for us women to cater to his complaints. It’s all true. And it’s great.
Wow.
“I want lots of men (but not me) to die violently, without shifting economic power into women’s hands. That way I’ll be able to force women to compete against one another for my favour!”
Thank you, Mr Savage, for laying it out so openly and honestly. You really, really don’t like men, do you? Your response to your own perceived romantic inadequacy appears to be “I want everyone better than me to get killed”, and that’s… wow.
I mean, I knew you hated women, but now it seems like you just have a thing against humans of both genders, or maybe humans in general.
As a man, I would be grateful if you could please fuck off. Some of us are busy and have no time for you attempting to spew bullshit on our behalf. I have no interest in trying to control women or reassert my status as a king; I’m too busy trying to create a better world for the next generation to inhabit. If I happen to get some sex along the way, great. If not, well, it gives me more time for writing.
First there was the stone age. It was a bunch of people who believed that everything was magic and resulted in a hodgepodge of cultures that vaguely sort of worked despite running entirely on local superstition.
Then there was the agricultural age. It was the gradual trading away of superstition for more practical concerns. But while each step of the way was a good idea on the short run, in the long run it ended up being a bad deal for most people on the personal level. But hey, at least the oxcarts run on time!
Then there were the two metal ages, mostly distinguished by the point when bronze became expensive and iron became cheap. Your king was essentially the local god, who affects whether you live or die based on seemingly arbitrary edicts. ‘Cuz his staying in power matters more than the lives of filthy little things like you, McSerf.
Then, speaking entirely of the West, came the “Enlightenment”. The printing press made ancient (mostly Greek) books widely available. Since the Greeks were the backwards hicks of the Mediterranean in their day, it largely resulted in taking their bad ideas and making them somehow worse. But a least they also chucked out some of the stupidity that the God-Kings came up with.
The came the industrial age. With the majority freed from the demands of agriculture, it opened the possibility of producing a new system which worked on both the societal level and the personal level for the vast majority of people. But did it happen? Nope, the wealth-barons refuse to allow anything which would threaten their newfound Godhood. Sucks to be you again, McSerf.
Now is the information age. People are finally working on that mostly-perfect society that the agricultural and industrial ages promised. Little by little, trial by error. But lo, what is this? Some delusional manbabies are declaring “But if we took the worst aspects of all those earlier ages, and kept the electricity and running water, then I would be a God-Lord of some kind! Therefore, it will happen. Gonna suck to be you, feminazis and manginas.” But everyone ignores them, and they flail about spreading body odor and cheeto dust and whining about how totally unfair it is that they can’t fuck over any random person on a whim.
(This is all meant to be read as sarcastic, if that’s not obvious.)
@leftwingfox: I wouldn’t mind a future where real furries were a thing. I mean, I’m not into them or anything like that, but if someone wants to be a moose-person or a semi-literal cougar, well, you be you. Just continue to act like a reasonably sapient being and we’re golden. It’s like, if that’s something someone really wants for themselves and they can’t, then it bothers me a little, sort of like how it is with trans people. Even though it’s not really the same thing. Probably, I don’t know anyone who identifies as a furry so I can’t even claim that for certain.
Though I rather suspect that if it ever happened, it would be a long time before they could get a job outside of drug dealing, prostitution, or porn, which would kind of suck for a lot of them even if having a job wasn’t necessary to survive anymore.
@ Victorious Parasol
How’s about sociology for that bingo?
I thought it was us ‘man hating feminazis’ that wanted to kill all men? Nope, it’s the MRAs. These dudebros are such hypocritical arseholes. Oh and I love (read with extreme sarcasm) being compared with an animal.
Lots of people manage to enjoy first person shooters without using them as an historical source or a model for how the world should be. What’s wrong with this guy? And why isn’t he heading out to one of the many countries that have recently had huge amounts of war deaths -Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, the Congo, to experience these earthly paradises for himself.
Also, love how he talks about women not valuing love and companionship, but somehow thinks men are completely interchangeable to them, like they aren’t devastated by the losses of husbands, sons, lovers, brothers – even if we keep on pretending women themselves don’t die in wars.
@Ooglyboogles
I wasn’t sure if you are still living with your parents. I had a lot of odd and slightly self-harming behaviour as a child that went away after I left home. It was really just anxiety in my case, and as an adult I have so much more control over my life and who I interact with.
If it does turn out to be something more permanent, getting a diagnosis and especially access to a therapist can be wonderful. Especially as you seem unhappy with your quirks – they can’t change things about you you don’t want to work with them on. You are allowed to have a private discussion without your parents, and if they refuse the doctor will understand the problem lies with them and not you. (The first time the doctor asked to talk to me without my father present, my father was extremely angry with me, so I know it can be scary, but that is abusive behaviour and was a major cause of my problems).
“Women are corrupted by consumerism!”
“Now let me explain to you how people have a sexual market value”
I always love this dissonance.
Says “King” Corey Savage, the guy whose article is on a pickup website.
Could even the sluttiest of potential sluts actually be a slut if all the men she encountered (who, as we know, are all honorable and right-minded) said, “No, I will not have sex with you! And I’m shocked that you would proposition me!”
Oh, is that too much to ask of men?
What happened to men’s high-mindedness?!
Oh wait, I’m talking to a Mr. Savage — and I’m pretty sure that’s a nom de plume/nom de guerre (pen name/war name).
If only he and his mentor, philospher-king Roosh, could figure out a way to monetize this much-hinted-at, supposedly upcoming all-out war against women!
Remind me a bit of the drunk old saying “Buvons à nos femmes, à nos chevaux, et à ceux qui les montent” (Let us drink to our women, to our horses, and to those who ride them).
I understand Mr Savage is close to horses. Not physically, of course, but at least, he has tight blinkers on his eyes. And if he is really want more closeness to horses, and that actual women are nightmare to him, let offer him a mare without the night, and let see if he is able to ride her.
Anyway, as it is, as usual, his boner that is involved, even if it can be fun to have consensual relations under stressfull situations, i am almost certain that trying to have sex while being shooted at during a war is not that pleasant/thrilling. Peace, on the other hand, allow you to carefully prepare those “thrilling” situations, without almost any risk : this is roleplay and it is bound to be a pleasant cooperation of all involved persons. But this stuff needs consent and to consider others as the human beings they are, two concepts Mr Savage seems to lack.
(On a side note : this kind of lads often think as sex as some kind of survival instinct, and use some kind of evolution stuff to assert their saying. Sorry guys, humans are not cockroaches, and even cockroaches thinks better than to have sex when death seems close. If evolution had seen sex as a pure survival instinct in case of war and imminent death risk, it would not have made a nine month gestation time for humans, and with only a few child/ren at a time)
@Ooglyboggles, all my sympathies and hopes that the doctor proves capable of actually listening to you.
Speaking with experience of a possibly-kind-of-similar situation, I very very much indeed agree with those who have pointed out that you absolutely have the right to talk to a professional without your parents being present. In fact for the sake of feeling and being able to speak more freely, it is very often crucially important that you do (I mean, I know you know this – you suggested something along those lines; I just mean to say yes, you’re right!).
I would go so far as to say that although the doctor may legitimately want to spend part of the time talking to you and parent(s) together, if they don’t spend at least some part of the time talking to you on your own I would have serious doubts about their competence and ability to be helpful to you. Parents may sometimes have useful observations/history to contribute, but you’re the only one who knows what is going on from the inside.
The doctor should be focusing on helping you; they may incidentally also be helpful to your parents (e.g. by giving them information, hopefully allaying their worries, ideally helping them to understand how best to help you ) but the doctor’s priority should absolutely be whatever is better for you. And if you reckon the doctor is not doing this (and ditto anyone they refer you to) then of course you don’t have to take their advice.
@ Claire
Sociology … sociology … ah, here it is! BINGO!
@VP
Whoo! What do you win!?
Toxic masculinity, in a nutshell.
Oh, f you. It’s as if women asked them to go into often unnecessary wars.
”Hey, I’m going to go do X for you, so you’ll owe me being my maid and providing me with sex”.
”Um, I didn’t ask you to do X, so why would I owe you anything?”
”Ungrateful harpy!”
The whole thing stinks of the so-called Nice Guys who decide to do something and then act super offended when you don’t respond how they wanted.
I don’t understand MRAs. On the one hand they advocate men “going their own way.” Then they turn around and bemoan feminism and its supposed effect on women not being available for the whims of men.
If you’re a man who is “going his own way”, shouldn’t you be happy that women don’t depend on you and don’t really care if you are going your own way?
@Patricia Kayden
They’re actually Boys Taking Their Toys And Telling Their Mom On You For Not Playing By Their Rules, or BTTATTMOYFNPBTRs.
@OoglyBoggles, you don’t sound that weird to me :). Seriously, though, I was wondering if “unmotivated socially deficient” was a description that came from you, or from someone else. It’s a pretty harsh label and those don’t come out of thin air. I’m struck by how much you seem to see yourself as difficult, or as a problem kind of person.
Whether or not there is a diagnostic mental health issue, I think you would find counselling/therapy extremely useful, provided it was with someone helpful that you feel ok talking to.
Excellent advice from other commenters here, especially re doing this on your own. I was fortunate to have lots of support the first time I needed help, but even then, privacy/confidentiality was all-important.
The financial dependence makes things horribly complicated all round. I don’t know where you are, so not sure what kind of healthcare system there is?
I really hope the appt goes well for you.
http://67.media.tumblr.com/84d5abc84b92d3bbe1350f8441bceea2/tumblr_mquegp8Fbs1rbybp4o7_1280.jpg