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.
@Ooglyboggles
Sounds similar to me. The laughing part I have a lot more control over than my husband does, but I think a lot of that is because of how deeply embarrassed my mother always was by me that I somehow learned to suppress it most of the time. I got a lot better when I moved out from my parents, and they’re almost tolerable now. I had to spend several years only seeing them twice a year (holidays) despite living in the same town to get to that point. And now I have a husband with many of the same quirks, which works out very well for both of us, because we don’t have to worry about laughing at memories or being “caught” practicing conversations.
Good luck with your appointment and I hope you reach your goal of financial independence soon. And I also hope the doctor slaps some sense into your parents and explains there’s nothing wrong with someone just because they act a little different or in unexpected ways as long as it’s not harming anyone. People need to seriously stop being so weird about forcing everyone to act and think the same way. Not everyone is going to fit in the same box.
You’ve got to stand in awe of how these dufuses view all of human history through the cynical lens of 20th century quid pro quo transactionism or done kind of shittily constructed pseudocapitalism. I doubt very seriously that the majority of human relationships has ever been “Me Gronk. Me give you shelter in Gronk’s cave. You give humphump, make baby Gronks.”
To suggest that this is the only driving force in relationships is to discount altruism, love, philanthropy, etc, all of which have existed in one form or another throughout history thigh to varying degrees.
Oh wait, shit that’s right, history is a girly liberal arts field of study for bleeding-ovary feeeeeemales. Of course big macho dudes like Monseigneur Savage (best wrestling name EVER) haven’t read up on the stuff. Mea culpa for my obvious, desperate stupidity.
Now I’m just your average Beta Gender Questioning Mangina College Student but honestly I probably know more about early human social structure after only a year of Anthropology then Savage. A lot of early hunter gathering cultures were probably fairly egalitarian due to what many anthropologists have observed in many of the few hunter gatherer tribes that still exist. Homemaking and child rearing is mostly left in the hands of those who are too old to hunt or gather. Also aren’t wars supposed to be bad things you know with all of the ruined economies, ruined lives, parent less children, and Soldiers returning with PTSD.
Maybe Freud was right?
I mean, he wasn’t totally right but… he did have a point, didn’t he? ?
Oh good, someone made that point really early in the thread.
What is this guy plan to not die ? He believe he is so exceptionaly proficient at war, which something he never did, that he will outrun bullets and survive firebombing ?
@Pol
Right about what, exactly?
@Pol
It’s impossible to know exactly what you mean. Doesn’t matter to me — I ‘ll just go there.
In my opinion, penis envy is not a thing.That said, lots of guys worry about other men’s penises. Women don’t worry about possessing penises. We have our own stuff, thanks.
Freud had a dim and gloomy view of the human race. I don’t share that view. We humans are capable of both bad and good.
And certainly Freud got girls and women wrong, Dora being an early example of getting us terribly, stunningly wrong and siding with our oppressors. A product of his time? Sure. But isn’t it a psychiatrist’s/scientist’s/thinker’s job not to be a product of their time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_(case_study)#Feminist_and_later_criticisms
/pol/’s a gotcha troll, just FYI.
Anyone care to bet that Mr. Savage is old enough that he pictures himself as one of the patriarchs staying home and collecting a harem, rather than one of the disposable young men marching off to die for the Patriarchs’ glory?
(Here’s a hint, Mr. Savage: how many men were there in Mad Max: Fury Road? Hundreds? And of those, how many were actually benefitting from society as it was? That’s right: three. Five, if you stretch it to include Immortan Joe’s sons.)
@Patricia Kayden: You’re mixing your flavors of internet misogyny. MGTOW’s are separate from MRA’s, who are separate from PUA’s, and there’s often a lot of animosity between them. MGTOW’s think that both of the other groups are sellouts for continuing to participate in a Gynocentric system – they hold PUA’s in particular contempt for their enslavement to The Pussy. MRA’s believe that the MGTOW’s should be on their side, and consider them deserters because they’re not. They consider PUA’s to be a bunch of irresponsible children who refuse to recognize the Greater Cause because they’re so obsessed with getting laid. PUA’s consider both of the other groups to be beta losers who are bitter because they can’t get laid…or rather, they did. Now that Roosh and the other leaders (along with many of the original members) of the PUA movement have reached the age where they’re the creepy old guy in the club, and one night stands are starting to seem like more effort than they’re worth anyway, they’re starting to morph into bog standard MRA’s.
Right about what? Well, people get bored with civilisation. And then you end up with a mess of fascism and misdirected libido. Assuming there’s a difference of course…? And that’s what we’re gettin’ now.
Oh what a surprise.
You know, the problem of “too many men” could be solved if some of the men would ‘go their own way’ and take themselves out of the competition.
@Pol
I’m a person.
I’m not bored with civilization yet. I don’t anticipate that I’ll get bored.
So Freud got me wrong.
Oh, do girls not count?
What a charmingly liberal interpretation of Freud.
@Kat
To Freud, no, women and girls don’t count.
Chelsea Manning
http://nypost.com/2016/07/06/chelsea-manning-rushed-to-hospital-after-suspected-suicide-attempt/
Good for you Kat. And of course Freud was wrong about a few things to say the least. But I would be wary of things lurking in your closet. Good ol’ civilisation eh? And also, gender is an illusion, as I like to repeat ad nauseum. But it’s true!
And thanks Viscaria. I would have that sort of naive interpretation, wouldn’t I? But then again that figures as I am a charming liberal. Well, minus the charm of course…?
And a goodnight to you all! But don’t worry though. I’ll be back with more exciting stories. Same bat time, same and so on…
Speaking of horses, war and gender roles, many of the central asian steppe nomads throughout history either had women fighting in their armies or they were armed and trained to defend the settlement with or without the men. Some even had the practice of not allowing a woman to marry until they had killed an enemy in battle.
Sometimes my cat lurks in my closet. I do need to be wary of him, lest I accidentally throw a sweater at him.
BTW, for our irony-immune friend: “liberal interpretation,” in this instance, means “your understanding of Freud is limited at best.”
Shorter horrible OP post: “WHYYYYYY can’t we go back to the Good Old Days, when we could Own People?”
I mean, that’s what Savage is talking about: marriage as ownership. Marry a woman as a fiscal transaction, then be allowed to control everything she does, says and thinks. That’s the literal thing these garbage humans want. They just call it ‘marriage’ and “WESTERN CIVILIZATION OMG” instead of what it IS, which is slavery.
Also the ability to own/destroy rival men, by drafting them into wars/exporting them to other countries/enslaving them through violent conquest of said other countries.
That’s not “the Good Old Days”, that’s FUCKING EVIL. STOP WANTING THAT, YOU SHITHEADS.
@Nequam
In the US Army currently, marching and running cadences that contained gendered references to negative characteristics or other sexist language are prohibited by multiple Army regulations, and if anyone experiences Army personnel using them, they should report them.
When I was in the US Army in the early 1990s, such cadences were frowned upon but still regrettably tolerated…interestingly, because “Jody” can be a female first name I heard female NCO’s alter pronouns in traditional cadences to make Jody (in the story the cadence told) a civilian woman, too cowardly to serve, and who instead stayed at home (“…back on the block”) and stole the female narrator’s boyfriend.
HawkerHurricane, love your handle….by any chance is it inspired by that amazing historical fascist-obliterarting flying machine of the same name?
If someone hasn’t done so already, it would probably be useful to point out that the fallacy of the old misogynistic ‘plaint that men do all the suffering in war ….the is especially b.s. when it comes to the bigger, badder and bloodier wars of the twentieth century. We here at Pavlov’s House feel very strongly about that. I’m American (though a Russophile) but Mrs. Pavlov’s House is Russian and of course the evidence is quite clear that fighting and suffering in the Great Patriotic War was not something on which Soviet men had anywhere near a monopoly. Now, in fact that war did have long-term demographic effects on the sex ratio of the population of the USSR in the decades that followed and this is probably the kind of thing that Savage thinks he’s talking about but his understanding of it is quite garbled.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: misandry IS a real thing, and it’s baked into misogyny.