Dear Feminists: This Is Why You Are In Trouble

The ongoing kerfluffle over the site #WomenAgainstFeminism, displaying selfies of a number of attractive young women who are all holding placards declaring why they don’t need feminism, has gone beyond the usual shame-and destroy tactics that the feminist establishment usually employ.  Instead what has happened as these women quietly but publicly disagreed with the status quo ideology and dis-identified themselves as feminists is remarkable.  Some have likened it to the feminist Berlin Wall crumbling, or an anti-feminist Arab Spring. 

It is telling that it took young women rebelling against feminist ideology in a public sphere to get prominent (and obscure) feminists all over the world to listen – if only for a moment – to the same things that most folks in the Red Pill/MHRA/MGTOW/PUA/OMG community have been saying, some of us for decades.  But when opinions that issue from the mouths of men are ignored or discounted simply because of our gender, when feminism refuses to engage in any meaningful dialog with those it purports to change, then its own unwillingness to participate in a debate it claims to want demonstrates the disingenuous nature of your ideology.

The shock and disgust displayed toward these young women by feminists is appalling.  They are treated as vapid and ignorant, young, dumb, and desperately seeking male attention by those who would dismiss their well-articulated positions.  The irony of this escapes not even thefeminists, themselves.  Some are even leaving their association with feminism.

But ladies, this is what the problem is.  Let me mansplain something to you, because you clearly missed something.  I’ll go ahead and do it in patronizing and patriarchal tones, so that you have an opportunity to scoff derisively as you read it, desperate for a hint of misogyny – us white male dissidents understand our role in your ideological drama, and I would hate to disappoint. 

Over and over in these face-palming critiques I keep reading of your utter horror as you saw one young woman after another (apparently) mis-understand what feminism “is about”, I hear you complain bitterly that these women are getting it wrong.  Feminism isn’t about (insert tragic misdiagnosis here) it’s about equality.  You quote the dictionary, chapter and verse, you quote great feminist minds of the past, inspirational voices who led you to realize what feminism “is about”.

Only, not everyone agrees with you.  And that’s making you batshit crazy.

There’s an understandable amount of schadenfreude in the Manosphere over this, but believe it or not, I’m not gloating.  I’m just vindicated.  Many of us predicted this sort of thing would happen, and gosh darn if it didn’t.

You see, the thing that is driving you crazy is that feminism is an ideology, but it also functions, in many social ways, like a cult or religion.  And while your intellectual inner circle has been preaching equality for years, regardless of the strides or gains you may have made, the fact is that your ideology’s public image has been tarnished badly in the meantime.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but you made the same mistake Republican candidates traditionally make.  In an effort to appease the loudest voices, and maintain the appearance of unity, you have allowed those voices to dictate the direction of the entire group – or at least its perception by the public.

There’s a reason that only a small minority of women identify as feminists these days.  The ideology has become so loaded with baggage from the culture wars of the past that adherence to it involves picking up that baggage . . . and that’s something that most women just don’t want to do.

Worse, two decades of systematic targeting of masculinity, in all of its guises, has managed to alienate nearly all men from your banner.  There was a time, in my fuzzy youth, when I may have identified myself as a “male feminist”, because I believed in equality too . . . but I believed in full equality: draft cards, equitable sentencing, and equal custody and all, and those were issues that feminism, alas, did not see as germane.

They sure as hell were germane to me.  And to a lot of other guys. 

Over the years, individual feminists and feminist-oriented groups made it quite clear that men were not welcome – we were part of the problem, and the more we tried not to be, the more you lashed out at us as individuals and as a class.  Whether you intended to or not, feminism as a movement became associated with the callous disregard of masculine values and the blanket disrespect for male issues.  You couldn't even let a bunch of guys get together and talk about male homelessness, suicide, and social issues without protesting and making death threats.  Classy, feminism.

We were supportive, once upon a time.  But what did we earn from that support?  You called us part of the Patriarchy, taunted us for our perceived privileges, and never spared the opportunity for shame and guilt about our gender.  We supported your reproductive freedoms and your right to own your own bodies, and you called us participants in “rape culture”.  When we threw up our hands and realized that there was no way for you to be happy with us, you called us “misogynists”. 

So we left.  There’s a reason that “male feminists” of any note are as scarce as hen’s teeth any more.  No one wants to be a male feminist.  You savage them with particular delight, when they persist in being male, and no man wants to be seen publicly working against the best interest of his gender.  Congratulations, ladies.  You’ve made “male feminists” an endangered species.

Like the Republicans, you’ve played to your base and alienated the mainstream.  People don’t associate feminism with positive values, anymore, and it’s not just Red State hicks and Southern politicians who feel that way.  Feminism was the ideology that spurred millions of women to divorce and break up their families, and many of us carry the scars of that decision.  Feminism made men fearful to even speak to women, much less relate to them in a professional manner.  While you may see the resulting domination of women in corporate positions of power as gratifying, understand that it was done at a price. 

You may see feminism as responsible for great strides in American and World history, and I can’t deny that.  So was Marxism, the ideological model feminism chose to co-opt – the one that equated men with the oppressing class and validated some feminists’ need to hate men as a class.  A lot of us take that personally.  Feminism’s unequal treatment of gender issues across the board has grown so egregious that protecting the virtue of 200 little African girls results in a global awareness campaign, while the brutal deaths of hundreds of boys in the same conflict earned no attention by feminism.

You can claim that feminism isn’t about hating men and punishing boys, Ladies, but the fact of the matter is that this is precisely how feminism is viewed by a broad plurality – if not a majority – of the men in America.  Not the progressive pals you keep around you to remind yourself you don’t technically hate all men, but the dude who changed your oil, mowed your lawn, stocked your groceries and passed you on the freeway, all of them have a disdain for feminism, as an ideology, that they would likely never speak to you about.  

You've attacked male sexuality with bloodthirsty abandon, belittling the "male gaze" and objecting to "objectification" - without understanding that objectification is as important to male sexuality as emotional context is to female sexuality.  Your relentless fight against "rape culture" has put you at odds with every heterosexual man in the country, as you rampage for the right to only be approached by attractive men, and demonize unattractive men by their "misogyny".  Feminism has been responsible for more male sexual guilt that the Catholic Church.  But you don't know that, because we stopped talking to you a long time ago.

Because speaking to feminists about feminism when you disagree with the culture that has sprung from the ideology is akin to speaking to a cult member.  Every stay-at-home mom who decided to spend her best reproductive years making a home and building a family with a loving husband has been called to task for her choice – “you could be so much more”, “why are you letting him keep you isolated?”, “don’t you want to prove you can make something of yourself?”, these are all the catty, snide little ways feminists have promoted your ideology. 

In seeking equal opportunities for women, feminism has denigrated the role of wife and mother that so many women desire.  Voicing a preference for Blue’s Clues over Black’s Legal Dictionary gets a woman pilloried in our post-feminist society, as you well know.  By placing careerism over the desire for a family, feminism has inadvertently doomed hundreds of thousands of successful career women to childlessness, as the “good” men they plan on settling for after they’ve established themselves in careers seek less-driven mates to be the mothers of their children.  The frustration among the professional class of feminist is palpable.  Yet feminism teaches them that it is men’s fault, or the fault of the Patriarchy, or ageism, or whatever rationalization is in vogue at the moment.

Those rationalizations, as thousands of women are discovering, don’t keep you warm at night. 

But not only has feminism alienated men of good will and mothers, feminism has consistently besieged one of the most hallowed areas of femininity: marriage.  In its efforts to protect women in abusive relationships, feminism has waged an unrelenting war against one of the pillars of femininity.  No, not all women want to get married – but for those who do, and there are a lot of them, feminism has successfully weakened the institution to the point where feminism has become the antithesis of a happy marriage.

Just watch how apologetically a feminist announces her engagement.  I had that pleasure, recently, and watching this woman squirm while she had to admit to her equally-feminist friends that she wanted a husband – not that she needed a husband, but (like a handbag or a new car) she wanted one – was an awkward moment.  Of course, she could not bring herself to actually say the word, “husband” – she said “partner” – and she instantly declared that she would not take his name.  Go girl.  I felt humiliated and emasculated on her bridegroom's behalf.  

But while I quietly congratulated her on her marriage, the fact is that feminism, regardless of its vaunted goal of equality, has consistently tarnished and weakened an institution that a majority of women hold sacred . . . and they have muddied the waters of non-feminist women considerably by their approach. That hasn't garnered feminism any positive public relations.

Men are reluctant and fearful to marry now, thanks in part to feminist-inspired pro-divorce culture, ala Eat, Pray, Love.  Feminism’s successful war on the patriarchal expectation of sex in marriage has removed the insulation married women once had from the Sexual Marketplace, making their husbands prey to predatory women and devaluing their own sexual contributions.  When feminism made it clear that a husband had no native right to his wife’s body, it also undermined the marital exchange to the point where she can no longer be certain of his fidelity.  Feminism is synonymous with divorce, not happy wives, in the real world beyond the ivory tower. 

(It might be helpful if feminism stopped treating the term "wife" like a death sentence.  Requiring a woman to apologize for her marriage and her husband, and then imposing a lot of humiliating restrictions that are going to be harmful to the marriage, doesn't win you many allies.  Feminism has made it possible where a little girl can grow up and be a great feminist anything . . . except a good wife.)

Feminism did itself no favors by encouraging the sassy self-esteem of two generations of girls.  While claiming white men had unearned privilege, feminism pushed the unearned privilege of white girls to the breaking point.  Many folks are anti-feminists not because they object to the ideals of feminism, but because they object to the conduct of feminists.  Young women who feel that they are entitled to pretty much anything they want, who trade on their feminism with threats of legal action or scandal to get their way, these women aren’t ‘empowered’ – they’re ‘bossy’.  That would be one thing if they were also highly competent and productive, but those are not qualities feminism has emphasized in its application. 

The writings of the Women Against Feminism are telling: to them (and to the rest of us) feminism is a bunch of angry women screaming shrilly about how the rest of the world needs to pay attention to them and give them what they want, in a judgmental, demanding way.  The rest of us don’t dislike feminism because we hate equality, we dislike feminism because for many of us some of the most unpleasant and difficult-to-work-with people we know are feminists. 

We see them not just as unhappy people, but people who have invested in their unhappiness to the point where they will only be happy when the rest of the world is just as unhappy as they are.  You want to see feminism perceived in a positive light again?  Create a way for a woman to be a happy feminist.  That’s going to be difficult with an ideology that, practically speaking, sees half of the human race as an enemy, but give it a shot.  Y’all are creative. 

Start by trying not to insult and demean anyone whose opinion you don’t like.  Feminism loves to call people names, from ignorant to backwards to stupid – and feminists excel at invective.  Tearing someone down verbally is a high feminist art, and most of us have been the object of that scorn at one time or another, deserved or not.  When you cannot have a discussion with a feminist without her snorting about your perceived privilege, or having her try to shame you into working against your best interest, then engaging in any kind of productive dialog is challenging. And demanding.  And usually self-defeating.  

So mostly we just . . . don't.  We ignore you.  We turn our backs on you and mostly we just don't entertain a feminist perspective in any sort of positive way anymore.  

As a man I have been called a plethora of vile names and had my character attacked by feminists, even what were supposed to be reasonable, academic discussions.  Feminists have a kind of argument cycle that they go through, I’ve observed, in which my intelligence, education, upbringing, and decency are first brought into question before they launch into outright misandry and emasculation.  At least half of such discussions end with them questioning my manhood – when I know for a fact how they would have reacted had I questioned their womanhood.  

I’m a big boy.  I’m not intimidated by shrill women who think their ability to “be strong” and “compete” lies in their willingness to insult another human being.  They have said things to me that, had we truly lived in world of equality, would have required them to settle the matter through seconds and over pistols.  But because feminists tend to hide behind "don't hit me, I'm a girl!" when they decide to engage in such verbal bloodsports, most wise men just . . . walk away.  We're men.  We know feminism hates us.

But the things that you’ve called these Women Against Feminism have been nothing short of vile.  This is what you have to say about these beautiful, intelligent women who disagree with your political ideology.  Women with three advanced science degrees are called “stupid and uneducated” because they dare to disagree with feminist ideology.  Women who have made conscientious choices about their lives are being castigated and threatened.  Women who have made up their own damned minds are being called idiots by other women in a fit of misogyny the Manosphere could never muster.

It is in your reaction to #WomenAgainstFeminism that you reveal yourselves, collectively: Feminism has hit the Wall.  No one is responding to your "nice" voice anymore, because you've burned all your bridges.  Now your very daughters are rejecting your ideology and recoiling in horror from the idea of a "feminist" life.  Yes, feminism is associated with misandry and reactionary man-hating, female entitlement and anti-male ideology in the minds of most people. 

EDIT: A few choice comments:

Emily Shire of The Daily Beast, stating that the movement’s criticism of feminism is “inane, unintelligent, and useless.”

Feminist writer Rebecca Brink published a satire of the campaign on her blog, calling Women Against Feminism “a crock of bullshit based on a misunderstanding of feminism and an ignorance of data and history.”

But like the 35 year old woman who is still trying to rock a miniskirt, you still think feminism is about equality.  No, it is not about equality, and hasn't been for a long time.  What you think feminism is and what it does in the real world are two entirely separate things, and your association with an ideology that is, in effect, anti-male, anti-marriage, and anti-freedom of thought is not doing yourselves any good.

There's some hope that feminism will redeem itself - plenty of women are offended at the things being done in the name of their gender, and want to re-claim the now-poisoned title of feminist.  But until feminists collectively take a good, long, hard look into the mirror and hold themselves accountable for the sins of their sisters in the name of their ideology, don't count on a hell of a lot of support from the victims of feminism.  We're not inclined to be charitable about that sort of thing.

The AFC Spreadsheet Challenge: Run Your Numbers

I'm not piling on the criticism of the Spreadsheet Man, considering the amount of public abuse his passive-aggressive behavior earned him.  The issue isn't the spreadsheet - the spreadsheet was a good idea - the issue was one of how to use this tool.  Unfortunately, the Game-ignorant, Blue Pill Average Fucking Chump (AFC) husband has no idea how to take this very valuable data and leverage it into a more fulfilling sex life.

There comes a point in every married man's life when his unofficial numbers drop below the threshold he can comfortably stand.  Sex is an incentive reward system, and when his rewards drop so do his incentives.  Spreadsheet Man was batting a dismal 11%.  That is, for every hundred dedicated attempts at initiating sex with his wife, he successfully had sex just 11% of the time.  That's just shy of the Numbers Game ploy that novices at Game employ, before they have any social skills or practical knowledge of approach.  A man in 11% territory has every right to be alarmed at the state and direction of his marriage.

Most of the ire directed at Spreadsheet Man from the Manosphere has focused on the poor Gamesmanship he displayed, or - in the case of a few hopeless romantics - the temerity to consign something as sacred as marital relations to the cold, hard medium of Excel.  But if a man is to complain about something as serious as his sex life to his wife, he had better have objective data to give him some context.  Not that he could or should use the spreadsheet to try to bargain his way back into her panties - as Rollo has brilliantly demonstrated in his analysis of this case study in AFC sexual management, "you cannot negotiate attraction."  That's a mistake a lot of poor AFC Beta husbands make: thinking that he can use logic and reason to break the dismal numbers he's getting.

Let's set aside for a moment the issue of his use of this tool, this spreadsheet, and investigate instead just what would compel a man to create one.  That's the question I keep hearing women ask about the subject: "Why on earth would a man do something like that?"

Accountability. The short answer is that he created one because there was a stunning enough lack in his marital sex life that he felt compelled to measure the subject.  When his wife responds to his complaints with the inevitable "But we have plenty of sex - I don't reject you!" in order to salvage her bruised ego, Spreadsheet Man wanted to know if that was a factual statement or not.  You don't go shopping when there are plenty of groceries in the cupboard.  When the cupboard is bare enough, you suddenly need to take stock to see just how dire things actually are.

Let me break it down for you.

Most women use a variety of subjective measurements to determine their level of satisfaction with a relationship, a position that can wax and wane with the lunar tides sometimes.  Men, on the other hand, use the frequency and variety of sexual relations in their relationship as a rough metric for their satisfaction with it.  Simple of us, I know, but that's just how we are.  For most of us, if we're getting it good and regular, and with sufficient enthusiasm and imagination, then we can put up with anything form mothers-in-law to zombie apocalypse.  But if the nookie dries up, it doesn't matter how well everything else is going in the marriage, there's a problem.

A Note To the Wives

How much of a problem is the real question.  If your husband has ever produced a document or kept track of your sex life, yes, you have a problem, but the problem isn't with your dude.  When a dude starts running the numbers, yes, he's already invested some energy into the idea, so dismissing it angrily is not going to help your marriage.  It might seem unromantic, ladies, but that's our practical masculine approach to the problem.  Indeed, "running the numbers" is a Game fundamental.  The fact that you get uncomfortable when your man starts looking that carefully at your sex life should tell you something.

Look, ladies, try not to take this personally, although I know that's difficult.  No one likes to think that their intimate life is under a microscope.  But the fact that there is a problem in your husband's mind is the important thing, here.  It doesn't matter how often your girlfriends and sisters have sex, your married friends or your divorced friends, it doesn't matter what Cosmo says the national average for married couples is . . . if your husband thinks that there's a problem, then regardless of all other factors, there's a problem.

The feminine imperative and feminist dogma both encourage you to ignore this problem or - better yet - blame it on him.  But the sexually "Thirsty Husband" has a far higher chance of committing infidelity than the sexually-satisfied husband.  I know dudes who blew up their whole marriage and family over their wife's inability or unwillingness to give blowjobs.  It might sound petty and immature, but that's just how seriously we take our physical sex lives.

At the very least, consider it an exercise in practical mate guarding.  No matter how boring and ordinary you may think the dude you married might be to you, to a woman five to ten years younger he's a mature, sophisticated man who has his shit together - and there is no end of the women who are willing to poach him out from under you.  If your man is making spreadsheets and complaining about the nookie, that's an early warning sign that he's at risk.

The remedy is NOT to chew him out, castigate his morals or demean his sexuality, make excuses or blame him for the problem - on the contrary, the remedy is to take his complaint seriously, without taking it personally.  He's not saying he doesn't love you - he's saying he wants to love you more, and the frustration in that matter is becoming intolerable.  But he doesn't understand how (thanks to Blue Pill thinking) to articulate that in a helpful and meaningful way.

The Spreadsheet As Tool For Transformation

The Average Fucking Chump (AFC) married man who feels sexually rejected by his wife under the Blue Pill method approaches the beginning of Red Pill wisdom.  If he gets so far as to start charting the results of his encounters and rejections, he's starting to appreciate the magnitude of the problem.  Most wives hate to admit how many times they gently reject their husband's advances, preferring to see such tactics not as rejection but as "anticipatory teasing", as one female colleague called it.  The problem arises when that anticipation goes unfulfilled, and the affection the husband harbored starts to spoil.

Most Blue Pill husbands will reluctantly accept their wives' sexual excuses, as long as they hit often enough to make playing the game worthwhile (anywhere from 25-33%).  That is, as long as they have some sort of sex every 3-4 times they initiate, they'll generally accept that as reasonable, rather than imperil even those meager rations.  It's when you start getting rejected four times out of five or more that the AFC starts to get the feeling the game is rigged.

Charting out your rejections is unromantic, but then so are rejections.  Before you can understand the need for good Married Game, you must first understand the scope of the problem, and a spreadsheet over a given period of time (say, 90 days) is a good, rational, reliable, utterly pragmatic way to take stock of your status quo.  If you're a husband who is looking for a way to get your wife to have more sex with you, then this kind of data gathering before you take action is essential.

The AFC Spreadsheet Challenge

So I'm proposing any man who is toying with the Red Pill, but remains unconvinced of its potential effectiveness in his own marriage, take the AFC Spreadsheet Challenge.  Starting August 1st, start charting the number of times you initiate sex with your wife and her response.  Do this for 90 days, ending on Halloween, October 31st.

A few ground rules:

1. You may not inform your wife of what you are doing, lest you spoil the objective nature of the observations.

2. Only legitimate, sincere efforts of initiation, clearly and unequivocally stated, are counted as "real" initiations.  Mumbling "babe, can we tonight?" as she's running out the door to work doesn't count.  Neither does proposing a lunch-time blowjob when you know there is no possible way to make it happen.  There has to be adequate opportunity and reasonable conditions, as well as unmistakable communication of intent, to count an initiation.

3. You may display no negative recriminations, whining, or complaint with her rejections.  You merely note them in the log and detail the context and circumstances.  As a corollary, do not attempt a serious initiation more than once per day, unless the original rejection was redeemed later as a "raincheck".

4. You should also note the state of her menstrual cycle in your notes in order to make this exercise the most helpful.  Most AFCs don't believe or really understand the importance of the menstrual cycle on their success ratios.  See if a higher success rate corresponds to her most fertile period, when the data is analyzed.

5. Also to give this exercise the most benefit, note any scheduling issues, interruptions in normal routine, or other factors that might impact the normal flow of marital bliss.

6. Note time of day and location.  Likewise note exceptional response, including increased enthusiasm, novelty, and general interest in sexual relations.  You might be batting low numbers, but if you're hitting home runs frequently enough it can make up for it. Or your regular at-bat means a walk to first, perhaps with a lonely walk back to the bench afterward.

The point of this exercise is no more and no less than to collect empirical data on your ACTUAL sex life.  It isn't to instantly start improving it.  Indeed, what you are doing here is establishing your control data as a benchmark for improvement.  Being able to look at a representation of your personal sexual history can be rudely informative.  Knowing what your real numbers are, instead of the vague and subjective arguments your wife may propose about your sex life (do these sound familiar?  "We do it all the time!  We did it just the other day!  I don't reject you, you just want it all the time!  Is that all you think about?  Is that all I am to you?") is the first painful step on the road toward improving your sex life.

What you do with that data is key.  DON'T email it to your wife in a passive-aggressive snit, else you, too, may end up on Facebook or Reddit.  The point isn't to shame your wife, as Spreadsheet Man apparently tried.

But after 90 days of careful record-keeping, if you run your numbers and discover you're batting worse than you did picking up skanks in college bars, then you have a good reason to go to your wife with the reasonable complaint about your sex life.  NOT the spreadsheet.  Try it. (We'll go over this again in November, but this is where we're shooting - and I'll put it in nice Blue Pill Non-Offensive language, to help you get started).

"Honey, we need to talk.  I'm concerned about our sex life.  I don't feel that you're taking my sexual needs seriously, and I thought it would be best if we discussed it."

(Start in a non-accusing, reasonable, rational way.  See if she agrees if there is a problem.  See if she reacts emotionally.  See if she reacts violently.  How she reacts will give you at least some insight into the nature of the problem you face.  Let's assume for the moment she's going to be only slightly offended at your temerity, but curious enough to continue the conversation without an immediate appeal to emotion):

"Don't be silly, dear.  We have sex plenty - all the time.  How can you think I don't take your needs seriously?  I love you!"

Continue: "I've been paying close attention to how often we have sex lately.  That is, I've been looking at how often I bring it up and how often you turn it down.  I didn't want to come and talk to you if I was just blowing things out of proportion, after all - that wouldn't be fair.  But I kept track of just how often we've done it, lately, and just how often I tried to talk you into it."

(Using terms like fairness, equity, and equal are all helpful terms to hold frame and keep the discussion focused and in-context.  Let's assume she doubles-down on her position in the face of the realization that her husband is serious - and she's in danger of being held accountable.  Common female tactics in this case are to a) Blame the Male, b) Cause a Scene c) Appeal For Support d) Deny.  Let's assume she goes with Option D.).

"That's just not true!  Not only do I say yes most of the time, I even initiate sometimes!  You know that!"

Continue: "I'm sorry, but that's not what I see.  I've tried to initiate ___ times in the last three months - serious, real attempts to get your attention and try to be intimate.  During that time you actually initiated only twice, and most of the time you turned me down."

(This is where things get hairy, because the fact that you are checking so sincerely belies her stated position: that you have plenty of sex and that she doesn't reject you very often.  Worse, you've kept track and that makes her accountable for her actions.  While she likely believes that you are correct, her feminine pride and her horror at being held accountable risks seeing the situation blow up before it can be effectively dealt with.  This is where she might go to a) Blame the Male)

"I can't believe you took our sex life and made a spreadsheet out of it!"

"This isn't about the spreadsheet (maintain frame), this is about the health of our marriage.  I'm not trying to lecture you.  This is an item of concern for me, and I wanted to call it to your attention.  But if I'm getting results like this, I must be doing something wrong, don't you think?"

(No, this is not at all ALPHA - but your Blue Pill wife isn't expecting ALPHA demands.  Nor are you going to be able to make any - you don't have any Game yet.  Just bear with me)

"Honestly, I don't know where you get this stuff.  Of course you're not doing anything wrong!  It's just that we've been married for a while now - you can't expect us to act like newlyweds anymore."

"No, I expect us to act like a happily married husband and wife.  I could get rejected most of the time when I was single.  Why do you think you turn me down as often as you do?"  (This also holds frame, and puts the ball back in her court.  If she has a problem with your approach, this is where it will come out.  Likely possible responses include:

"I just don't feel like it sometimes."
"When you just pop up out of the blue and initiate, it takes me by surprise.  I'm not always ready."
"I don't like the way my body feels anymore."
"I don't know, I'm just not that into sex anymore."
"I'm just too tired - you know how much I work."

Etc. Etc.  This is the Excuse Wagon, pulled by the Rationalization Hamster.  No doubt you've recorded all of her given excuses already, but go ahead and take the time to write down her issues.  The goal isn't to negotiate desire, but to call to her attention the fact that this is a problem that you are now devoting your time and energy to.  Do it gently.  She's not going to tell you the real reason she's not responding sexually to you.

She's bored.

She's uninspired.

She's complacent.

She feels that married women aren't supposed to have as much sex.

She feels unattractive.

And all of those things, you poor AFC Beta Boy, are the REAL reason why your numbers are low.  There's only one way to raise them, and that's not doing dishes and a spiffy job on the lawn.  The only way to get your wife to have more sex with you is to Game her.  That is, study her sexual responses and understand them well enough to invoke them.  And then make yourself into an instrument to do just that.  The Spreadsheet is a tool toward that goal, nothing more.  But after 90 days, you should have an adequate baseline to tell you just how much work you have to do before you reach your goal.

Why Blue Pill Dating Advice For Men Sucks Scissors

The other Sex Nerd, Dr.Emily Nagoski has been informing the dateless male public the proper Blue Pill/Feminist-approved ways for men to approach women and, as you will see, her advice is designed to be ineffective and failure-driven.  Worse, in the name of combating "male sexual entitlement" it turns the entire process of flirtation and seduction into psychotic train-wreck of masculine humiliation.

Let's start with her posting on how to pay women compliments, presumably about her body, as a means of approach.  She uses the Facebook-delivered example of a dude who plays some Rude Boy Game by slapping at a woman's shoe on the train before complimenting her, then calling her on her irritation.  While most Red Pill dudes will see this as a bold and rough opening that will a) get him remembered and b) definitely start a conversation, Emily's delicate sensibilities were offended by his presumption.  Her position was that a man should not start a conversation with a compliment on a woman's appearance before first complimenting her on her personality and/or other attributes, and that NO compliment should be forthcoming unless that man was in a socially acceptable position to also tickle her (with her consent).

This is why feminist men don't get laid, and why Gammas and Deltas turn bitter.

Blue Pill dating advice is almost an oxymoron.  According to Emily's attempt to "help guys out", the primary consideration any man should have in an approach situation is the fact that every woman he meets is a neurotic body-phobic mess of insecurities that should be catered to at all times, lest he be labeled an Asshole and tarnished for all time.

This non-approach method of approach is basically telling men NOT "you aren't entitled to women's bodies", as Emily suggests, however; it's telling them "you aren't entitled to your own expression of sexuality because it is inherently offensive".  With that kind of foundation to begin upon, is it any wonder that the liberal and progressive young males out there are ending up with their own neurotic, scalzied insecurities about their sexuality?

Under feminism, there is NO authentic way for a man to approach a woman for a date without it being inherently offensive.  If a man follows Emily's advice then he is to check his libido and his masculine boldness at the door in deference to delicate feminine sensibilities - which screams GENDER ROLES.  While the sneaker-slapping Rude Boy Game might turn this anonymous dude into an internet meme for a few moments, when viewed with the Red Pill eye you can clearly see that while his approach failed, the blow-back for him is actually quite minimum.  Sure, he's an anonymous asshole online, but Emily ignores two fundamental truths about human mating in the age of Combat Dating:

1) Women are Fungible - he may have not successfully approached this particular woman, but consistently playing Rude Boy game will inevitably pay off with a sexual success because Emily ALSO ignores the fact that

2) Women respond to Rude Boy Game far more than they ever want to admit.  And they respond a LOT more positively to it, on average, than the standard Gammarabbit "game" of obsequious deference. The whole "chicks dig assholes" meme is regularly discounted by both feminists and Gammarabbits as patently untrue, yet any objective consideration of the data reveals that yes, indeed, in aggregate "chicks dig assholes".


Emily's advice isn't designed to improve a man's success with women.  It's designed to make rejecting men easier and more comfortable for women.  While that's just dandy for all the delicate wisps of silk and fluff who get offended if a man DARES compliment her sneakers, it doesn't help men at all.  Indeed, in closing Emily gives these two "rules" of Blue Pill approach advice to men that basically say "Don't Approach":

Talk about something substantive. Something you have in common. Something that clearly gives you a reason for talking to her other than the fact that you want to talk to her. 

Which, alas, means that very often there will be no reason for you to talk to someone you want to talk to, and therefore you don't talk to her. 

Sorry. 

Two more guidelines: 

(1) You can say something positive about a person's body or belongings ONLY AFTER you've said something positive about their personalities, their knowledge, or other attributes that you can only know about by, like, having a conversation with them. That means that a compliment about a person's body or belongings is never how you START a conversation.

(2) And if she's wearing headphones, she's saying, "I'm really hoping no one talks to me." In that case, the way to be the guy she likes most on that train or bus or elevator or in that coffee shop is to be the guy who DOESN'T approach her.

"Sorry", she says.

This isn't helpful to men in the slightest.  It's a recipe for catering to feminine insecurity in the public sphere.  While men are not entitled to sex or women's bodies, they are entitled to express their masculine sexuality in a socially-approved manner that does not violate the law or common sensibilities on the subject.  Noticing a woman's shoes is utterly acceptable, as is calling it to her attention.  Her reaction to the approach was instructive: she rejected, and demonstrated a lack of femininity and social graces in her response that gives the gentleman some indication of the quality of woman he was dealing with.

Emily continues the madness by conducting an unscientific internet survey designed to allow women to explain all the ways they prefer to pre-reject men, and then draws the following conclusions from the results:

BLUE PILL DATING ADVICE: 

Lesson #1 is: Touching a woman you don't know well is a great way to squick her out. 

Conclusion: You really, seriously, genuinely, absolutely, positively MUST GET PERMISSION before you touch.The permission doesn't always have to be verbal, but it always has come BEFORE the touching. When there is uncertainty or ambiguity, ask explicitly or else don't do it.

This is, of course, seriously, genuinely, absolutely, positively going to get you labeled as UNEXCITING TIMID GAMMA RABBIT who fails their initial worthiness test.  Follow this advice and the only women you will get are the ones you don't want.  Any woman whose insecurities about her body are this tightly-wound is highly unlikely to be a worthwhile pursuit for love or sport, and if she squicks that easily then throw her back.  This also points out how Blue Pill/Feminist-approved dating advice for men is designed to get men to REJECT THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY EVEN APPROACH.  Hardly the "help" most men need.

Red Pill Dating Advice:

Lesson #1 is:  Casually touching a woman in a non-sexual way during approach is an acceptable risk; while it may squick her out, it also helps determine her level of emotional and mental security and stability.  Likewise, approaching a woman with a compliment on her physical appearance may run the risk of squicking her out, but that is also an acceptable risk.  The cost-benefit analysis implicit in initial approach is designed to investigate the quality of the woman in question, and a woman whose insides "curdle in repulsion" to a genuine and sincerely-delivered compliment from any man and demonstrates that in her response is indicates poor potential for any kind of relationship, not to mention a profound lack of social grace.  MOVE ON.  You can do better.

It's hard to imagine a professional sex educator doing this much of a disservice to the male sex, but that's feminism's way.  Masculine sexuality is a beast to be feared, not contended with, and the more frightened they can make men of their own sexuality (and convince them to feel guilt and shame about it) the more men can be used to facilitate feminine imperatives, not pursue masculine ones.  

In other words, in the dating realm the reality is that

It Doesn't Matter What Women Like, Don't Like, Or Say They Like And Don't Like; The Only Thing That Matters Is What Women Respond To.

And that's why feminists suck at giving men dating advice.  

Proven Low-Cost Masculine Self-Improvement

I get a lot of mail from men who are desperately looking for a way to Alpha-up, break their beta, and submerge themselves in the sweet balm of masculine culture . . . but have no freakin' way how to get there.

That's understandable.  After forty-plus years of denigrating everything of masculine value, the institutions that once provided the stable and reasonable introductions into the world of masculinity have been tarnished, bruised, and battered in our society.  Even seeking out a place to cultivate your masculinity will make you the object of derision and scorn among the women and gammas in your life.  Tell a feminist you want to go someplace and learn how to be more manly, and you might as well tell her you're signing up for an "Intro To Patriarchal Oppression And Rape Culture" class.  Our culture has derided the traditional masculine to the point where manhood itself has become a tired old joke in our popular culture.  I don't need to tell you this stuff.  You see it all the time.

But what if I told you that there was an organization of men who specialized in the cultivation of masculine virtues?  What if I told you that there was a society dedicated to the improvement of men by adherence to masculine virtues, not mere pick-up lines or metrosexuality?  Where competence and the ambition to learn were valued over social status and SMV?  Where achievement and accomplishment were not just acknowledged, but were celebrated and lauded as they should be?  What if I told you that there was an organization that values the contributions your masculinity can make without reproving you for your sexism, your desire for order, or your dedication to masculine ideals?

I know of such a society.

When I talk to men about cultivating their masculinity they despair of not having a good group of male friends.  Of not having the opportunities to explore their character through challenge and trial.  I see men who desperately want the discipline and the camaraderie of male society, who crave the opportunity to contribute their own talents and resources and be recognized for those contributions.  The want a place where they can go and be men without recourse to a locker room or basic infantry training. A place who will accept them for who they are, and help them grow into who they want to be.

I know of such a place.

The Boy Scouts of America.

Scouting has taken a lot of heat from liberal and progressive factions over its stance on homosexuality.  While it is now permissible for Scouts to be gay, there is still a ban on openly gay leaders.  There are many complicated reasons for this - gay Scout leaders do now exist and have served with distinction and honor for decades in Scouts - but because of the number of religious conservatives and the perceived liability, as well as some cultural issues, openly gay Scout leaders are forbidden by the BSA.  And that little point has been the wedge that progressive feminist organizations have used against the Scouts for years.

But that's not really what bugs them.  What bugs them is that Scouting has been, and is still dominated by men and masculine values.  When men congregate to discuss anything without the benefit of female supervision, the Matrix goes nuts.  The feminist Matrix in particular recoils in open horror, assured that the Patriarchy is conspiring to oppress the wimmins the moment their backs are turned.  When men gather together to discuss how to become better men - which is the fundamental and unchanging focus of the international Scouting movement - feminists freak the fuck out.

The matter of homosexual leadership is just the excuse.  The moment that the ban on gay leaders is lifted, there will be yet-another issue the feminists will level at the Scouts when their current one is no longer valid.  Truthfully, that day cannot come too soon - not only is this a minor issue for most groups, but it would be nice if gay Scout leaders didn't have to hide.  For the most part they have no "gay agenda" beyond raising their sons to be good men.  Using homosexuality as a wedge to divide men against each other does a disservice to us all.

But if you're looking for a place to freebase masculinity, you can't ask for better without joining the French Foreign Legion. Just look at the Scout Law to see the bedrock masculine values that Scouting teaches:

A Scout Is

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent




There is not a single thing there that conflicts with the Red Pill praxeology.  Indeed, it is a celebration of masculine values unsullied by feminism.

Boy Scouting began a hundred years ago on Brownsea Island, in southern England, the product of Lord Baden-Powell's vision.  He was a soldier in the later British Empire who served in Africa, India, and other places in the Empire.  Most notably, he lead a mostly-civilian defense of a town in South Africa against Boer insurgents.  It was during this siege that he employed 11-13 year old boys as "cadets" to handle non-violent military responsibilities that would otherwise use a soldier who could be on the lines.  After the siege he expanded his exploration of youthful participation, writing a few field manuals on military scouting and reconnaissance.  Upon retirement, he discovered his military books were enjoying huge popularity in British schools when it came to being trained in observation and deductive reasoning.

Seeing the inadequacy of the quality of manpower the British Empire was dealing with (a by-product of the industrialization of England) Baden-Powell decided to do something about it.  He re-wrote his books on scouting as Scouting For Boys, and laid the foundations of the Scouting movement with a camp-out at a small off-shore island in the English Channel.  He took twenty boys from various socio-economic backgrounds, took them camping, taught them knots and other useful stuff, and generally began a tradition of male self-improvement that has influenced millions of men today.

Scouting is perhaps the best, easiest, and most cost-effective route to self-improvement in which a man or boy can enlist.  It distills the patriotism and discipline from the military - long the essence of male-oriented organizational culture - and removes the violent component, leaving just the plethora of skills and the path to achievement.  Scouting organization is replete with ranks and levels of achievement.  No one ever got an Eagle for "participation".

That's one of the feminists' issues with Boy Scouts: they encourage actual achievement, not artificial self-esteem.  If you want the 50-mile hike badge, you have to hike 50 miles.  You don't get a patch to celebrate your ability to show up and eat pizza.  The Scouting program is designed to challenge and encourage a boy to be the best man he can be, not feel good about himself for no particular reason.  Scouting carries the essence of masculine values in its basic tenants, and reinforces them through masculine-oriented rituals.  There is no equality, no equity, no consensus.  There is a Program, and there is accountability.

While you may have missed Scouting in your own youth (if you're over 18, there's no way you can make Eagle), the fact is that the culture and the environment of Scouting is perhaps even more beneficial to grown men.  Scouting is always looking for good, responsible, committed leaders, and there's no rule that says you have to have a son to participate.  Indeed, in our troop we go out of our way to include men in our community who might not have a child themselves, but still have something to contribute.  Anyone who can pass a criminal background screen and takes the Child Protection course is welcome.

You might be asking yourself, "how can I help a bunch of 12 year-olds become men when I'm not sure how to do it myself?"  Scouting offers plenty of training (the Wood Badge course is legendary for corporate leadership training) and the fact is that once you have to start breaking down basic masculine skills to a youth, you learn them better yourself.  By being responsible for someone else's struggle with achievement and education you gain significant confidence and esteem yourself.  Really.

Nor does the emphasis on basic scouting skills deter from the larger education the boys - and the men who lead them - gain from the experience.  Sure, you might not need to know how to tie a bowline in an emergency situation, but the security and confidence you gain from just possessing that knowledge can't be purchased at a weekend seminar.  Scouting deals with all manner of achievement and skills, not just the woodsy outdoorsy stuff.  Learning how to speak in public, learning how to lead, follow, organize, plan, execute, and follow-through is key to success, as you will learn.  And the very act of mentoring a group of boys eager for decisive, knowledgeable leadership forces you to improve yourself so that you do not disappoint their expectations.

You want a workout?  Strap on a 60 lb. backpack and lead a bunch of testosterone-poisoned teens on a rugged ten-mile trek through the wilderness.  Iron is great, in its place, but the kind of robust, constant-workout you get by camping can't be beat.  And Scouting's High Adventure component is like masculinity on steroids.  No one who has returned from Philmont Scout Reserve in New Mexico has done so unchanged. A new Scout reservation is just opening in the East, north of Beckley, West Virginia, that promises to provide even greater opportunities for the men of our nation. It's like the biggest Man Cave in the world, complete with ziplines, STEM center, white water rafting and BMX park.

But if you are looking for a low-cost way of improving yourself, a tried-and-tested method of masculine empowerment, a crash course in basic maleness, you can't beat Scouting for the experience.  Sign up to be a merit badge counselor or committee member at first.  Scouting is great at taking advantage of volunteer talents - if you can't handle camping, there's plenty of other stuff for you to do.  But nothing improves your own masculine self-image more than helping a boy recognize his own.  There is nothing more Alpha than helping a boy become the best man he can be.

This would be a great place for any former or current Scouts to detail how Scouting positively informed the men they are today.  You want a quick way to break your Beta and re-introduce masculinity into your life, Scouting is your best bet.

When The Review Is Better Than The Book

I haven't spoken much about the success of my 2012 book The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity.  Commercially, it's been moderately positive.  Critically, it took an early but well-reasoned hit from Matt Forney, who called it a noble failure.  I copped to his legitimate concerns - the book is flawed in execution, I freely admit.  Real Soon Now I will be publishing an update or new edition, whenever I find the time.  A lot has happened in the Manopshere since that book came out, and it needs to be covered.

But occasionally something comes up that brings me back to that "noble failure", like an Amazon reviewer who appreciated the book in concept and what it was trying to explain.  When this review came up on the site I was gratified by the reviewer's insights.  It would have made an excellent forward to the book.  So I'm going to present it in full, here, because I'm lazy and I think that the observations about the culture he makes are well worth the space to repeat.

(BTW, I'm not doing this to amp up book sales.  But I'll see about putting the beast on sale soon, just for giggles.)

4.0 out of 5 stars An illuminating and potentially empowering tour of male subcultures, June 30, 2014
By Ben Hourigan, author "Ben Hourigan" (Melbourne, Australia) 

This review is from: The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity (Kindle Edition)

After failing to be interested in it at university, I’ve been discussing gender politics with friends online since early 2013. Check out the “gender” category on my blog (benhourigan.com) for some examples. To sum up, I find much of contemporary ‘feminist’ discourse sexist, poorly reasoned, censorious, and contemptuous of the facts—a discredit to the name and to the people who rally behind it.

When I disagree with a thing, I make sure I do my research, and in the past twelve months I’ve read rather a lot in a feminist vein and in opposition. Ian Ironwood’s The Manosphere! A New Hope for Masculinity falls into the latter category.

Agree with them or not, contrarian thinkers often seem fresher and are more fascinating than adherents to the current orthodoxy. “The manosphere” is an after-the-fact grouping of a range of men’s subcultures, from those of men’s rights activists (MRAs) and pick-up artists (PUAs) to gay men attempting to create a masculine identity amid a culture that expects their feminization. I first came into contact with the term through a friend with an interest in the broader ideological movement called “neoreaction”—which some consider the manosphere to be a part of.

Writing in the manosphere is often unruly, raw, and confrontational, even downright offensive. This is not the realm of New York and London big-5 publishing, but of group blogs and self-published e-books. I hope we are beginning to move on from disdaining such work: as it was back in the mid-2000s when I was a videogames researcher, many writers with the best feel or most interesting take on the available material are doing their work outside of big-name journals, sites, newspapers, and publishing houses.

The rise of independent publishing helps the emergence of such movements and writers, giving them retail exposure without a publisher as gatekeeper and intermediary. As thriller novelist Michael MacConnell writes, there is an indentifiable left-wing bias among writers on average. It is tempting to speculate that this is entrenched by the ability of left-biased publishing-house staff to deny authors who do not share their prejudices access to the channels they control.

Ironwood’s is a self-published book, and its rawness comes in the form of several repeatedly misused words, and a range of other not-too-prevalent mistakes. I’ve come to accept this sort of thing as part of the indie publishing landscape, provided that it doesn’t compromise readability—and this is by no means unreadable or poorly written. Further rawness comes from its sources: the aforementioned blogs and e-books rather than academic journals and the canonical texts of gender politics. Ironwood also anticipates that readers of a feminist bent will take offense to the material, and makes little apology for that.

The book is less Ironwood’s own statement, though, than it is a summary of the different subcultures within the movement, the bloggers that represent them, and the ideas that they hold. Here we see MRAs and PUAs covered, as well as Christian conservatives, “old married guys” (OMGs), alpha dads, puerarchs, and “men going their own way” (MGTOW). All of these are identified as part of “red pill” culture. The term is taken from the original Matrix movie, and here signifies a willingness to accept and act on the basis of uncomfortable truths rather than the myths of a politically correct orthodoxy, which are intended to subdue you.

Such “truths,” in the manosphere, tend towards:

* ideas from evolutionary biology
* a belief that men and women are different by nature as well as nurture
* skeptical views of the claim that we live in a patriarchy, that men possess male privilege, and of claims about sexual assault incidence that hinge on a redefinition of “rape” and surveys where the researcher, not the subject, decides whether they have been victimized
* observations that women are attracted by displays and exercises of male dominance in and out of the bedroom, including the accumulation and dispersal of wealth, and the exercise of physical strength

Dismiss all this as misogyny if you like, hopefully with an awareness that the word now means “counter to feminist orthodoxy” more often than it refers to genuine hatred or denigration. That dismissal is so predictable it can be taken as given. What’s more interesting here are some of the other discoveries to be made:

* The manosphere includes gay men trying to recover their masculinity from a feminized culture.
* Lots of manosphere talk is about good health and eating, career planning, the benefits of travel, self-employment, and education, valorizing blue-collar work, and trying to stay happily married.
* “Men going their own way” are about recovering their independence not only from a culture that sees their primary value as being their ability to support women and serve their interests, but also from the institutions where they are expected to seek employment, and the consumer culture where they are expected to spend what they earn at the office or factory.

Let’s sum this up as simply as we can: the manosphere is about men being comfortable with their own gender identity and sexuality while pursuing good health, prosperity, and independence.

Given this, it’s somewhat inevitable that manospherians spend time criticizing feminism and feminists, which feminist commentators accuse them of spending too much time on. Why? Because manospherians’ view of feminism is that it means women serve their own interests while men also serve women’s interests.

I’m in broad agreement with this, and also in broad agreement with earlier strains of feminism. Health, independence, and a positive view of one’s own sexual identity are important for human wellbeing. Feminism’s claim is that women have been denied these goods, and it has sought to recover them for women.

The problem is, much contemporary gender feminism attempts to recover these goods while denying them to men—particularly the assertion of a positive sexual identity. Just one loathsome example of contemporary comment, written by a man, insists that modern men are trained to hate women. Really? I never was, and I never did.

In fact, I have since childhood been exceptionally comfortable with women and interested in them as people, and regarded them as my equals, a situation I’ve viewed as totally compatible with my interest in them as sexual partners. Precisely because of this, and the apparent necessity of mentioning it in my defence, the repeated insistence that, I and my male peers must in some way hate and fear women, be oppressing them, or be constantly enjoying a privilege that we are obliged to apologize for, has made me decreasingly sympathetic to contemporary feminism and calls for attention to women’s interests.

Magnify that for confirmed manospherians. Against a feminism that pursues specifically female interests to the exclusion and detriment of men’s interests, the manosphere’s subcultures raise their banner: “we are men pursuing our own interests and valorizing our own sexual identity.” And they will pursue those interests against the interests or claims of women if necessary.

If feminism is reasonable in calling for female self-determination, it then seems reasonable that men might attempt to do the same.

Though I don’t recall that Ironwood says this explicitly, one of the tantalizing offers that the manosphere makes to men is this:

"Men don’t have to do what women want them to do. Or, for that matter, what anyone else wants them to do."

And not only can you do what you want, but, so the red pill observation goes, you will get laid more if you do, because women are attracted to assertive men who are in control of their own lives and don’t submit excessively to external demands or goals that others have set. And not only that, but it’s fine to view getting laid more as a goal. It looks like that’s what male sexuality is about, and it’s fine to be a man.

In the manospherian view, men don’t have to:

* be feminists or feminist allies
* crusade any further for sexual equality
* wash the dishes using the exact method that their wives or girlfriends or mothers-in-law prefer to see them use when they are looking over their shoulders (yes, this happened to me—it was a mother-in-law)
* wonder if they are rapists because the willing girl who came home with them was tipsy when they went to bed, or because they hadn’t filled out a consent form, or if they are sexual assault victims because they really wanted to sleep but had sex with their insistent girlfriend instead (yep, that’s sexual assault according to some survey methodologies)
* commit to a relationship and have or support children
* pander to a culture of discourse that views emotivism, faulty logic and rhetoric, personal attacks, and unwarranted extrapolations of personal experience as a praiseworthy counterpoint to the supposed masculine use of reason as a tool of oppression

Through his survey of the manosphere’s subcultures, Ironwood repeatedly gave me this kind of lightbulb-over-the-head moment where I understood that there is actually no deep moral or rational obligation for me to be on-board with the contemporary gender-feminist project, or to make apologies for my sex, sexuality, or rationality.

This should all sound hauntingly familiar: it is a mirror of some feminist outlooks. And it should be viewed as perfectly logical and defensible that, in a world where women make these assertions, men will make them, too. If we don’t like what is in the mirror, we should also look critically at what it is reflecting. In contemporary feminist and masculinist culture, there is a lack of concern for the other, and for society at large, that some (myself included) may find disconcerting.

Similar in this regard to Neil Strauss’s The Game, Ironwood’s book is an illuminating tour of male subcultures, albeit with an identity-political bent. It will fascinate most, offend many, and empower others.

Why Feminists Won't Surrender The War On Marriage

When the dichotomy between ideology and cold hard fact is just too great to ignore, it can create some interesting observations.  When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on the door of a church it outlined some of the stark and ironic contradictions between the ideology of the RCC and the practice.  While it's no 95 Thesis, this little gem from Forbes proves that the irony of feminists fighting against marriage for the good of women is just too delicious for even a feminist to miss.

Entitled "Dear Feminists: In The Name Of Fighting Poverty, Can We Call A Truce About Marriage?" writer Carrie Sheffield defends the institution of matrimony not on ideological, religious, or moral grounds, but statistically.  Citing several figures that show that marriage improves women's lives as both wives and daughters, Ms. Sheffield takes 3rd Wavers-and-beyond to task over their wholesale condemnation of marriage as a plot of Teh Patriarchy.

Ms. Sheffield correctly identifies several key points about how single mother families are dragging us down economically and socially, and she calls out key factos like globalization and the social acceptability of illegitimate children as culprits. She quotes stats aplenty when it comes to why the traditional two-parent household is superior to the one-mommy-and-Uncle-Sam model.  And she does, indeed, chew out feminism in general for smacking marriage around.

But in doing so she's ignoring some other pretty fundamental factors in the equation.  The fact that we don't properly educate young women on the pragmatic reproductive choices they will face, for example, or our young men on the folly of young parenting without marriage.  She wants feminism to put unwed mothers "in their crosshairs", but she's unwilling to follow the logic down the rabbit hole from where that leads.  She's placing all the pressure on feminism, thankfully, instead of blaming the "victim" of the young man whose reproductive future was coerced, but she doesn't address feminism's essentially anti-male basis for its anti-

marriage message.

Ms. Sheffield also sees this as a class issue - but doesn't identify the harmful marxesque ideology ("man as eternal oppressor", regardless of class) that underpins and informs feminism's perspective on marriage.  She proposes feminism "lay off" the topic of marriage, but doesn't say anything helpful about it laying off the general misandry that motivates feminism in the first place.  At best, she says "marriage is good for women and children", and brazenly leaves men sitting, unsurprisingly, by the side of the road.

I suppose that's par for the feminist course.  Identifying a real and valid method of improving the lives of women at risk for poverty sounds like it would be something feminism would be all over - but to do so they would have to abandon the victim mentality, the uber-rationalization that single moms are "men's fault", and then open up a rational and cogent discussion about the subject with actual men.

That's going to be problematic.  Men are generally soured on marriage in our culture for good reason, and marriage to feminists is just masochistic.  The social incentives available under agricultural culture and early  industrialization evaporated with the rise of the welfare state and liberalized divorce law. There just is no compelling reason for men to get married any more (saving women who have made demonstrably poor choices doesn't cut it) and that fact alone should shine brightly through any article about marriage and feminism.  I know guys who would be thrilled to be husbands to some decent woman, but who are so brow-beaten and terrified of divorce that they won't even consider it.  Hypergamy is an existential threat to a man considering a commitment.  Promises of better health and longevity do not compare to the apparent sacrifices and personal risks a man makes when he extends that commitment to a woman.

The feminist version of "marriage" implies no permanent commitment, no surety of a man raising or even seeing the offspring he is financially responsible for, and a permanent resignation of control over the family to his wife under pain of dissolution.  There is no respect, here.  There is no appreciation for the masculine contributions to the institution.  Indeed, they are regularly denigrated and bashed, as are the husbands who contribute them.  Feminist "marriage" is a transitory, temporary thing designed to fail and - in the process - humiliate and emasculate the husband.

He exists within the bonds of feminist marriage as a provider and protector, the "good" elements of marriage that feminism wants to keep, but is denied the respect and admiration a husband should receive (that would be a betrayal of the sisterhood) and he is vociferously forbidden from the patronizing, paternalistic, patriarchical practice of expecting sex from his wife and having full parental rights over his children.

For the feminist husband, marriage is an elaborate shit test he can never win, an invitation to hypergamy and divorce.  The more obsequiously he praises and defers to his wife, the lower in status he descends among his male peers and the less attractive he is to his wife.  Any opportunities for displaying his value as a man are mitigated or destroyed by his basic posture, and undermined by a preconception of masculine values as negative.

So why, then, would a man be drawn toward a situation which clearly doesn't have his interest in mind?

Marriage is a very particular institution, and feminism's attempt to re-write the nature of the beast have been disastrous for men.

Ms. Sheffield needs to realize that feminism won't let up on marriage because it cannot.  To do so would betray the ideology that is the foundation of feminism, and more pragmatically it would force feminists, and women in general, to begin to talk to men, not at them.  They can't do that because they are afraid: afraid that they will be held accountable for their past misandry, afraid that they will have wasted the time and energy invested in that misandry, and (worst yet) they would have to admit that the enemy, Teh Patriarchy, for the last 40 years or so.
maybe wasn't quite so bad as they made it out to be

Feminism can't support marriage, because then it would have to face the inconvenient truths about human sexuality, marriage, divorce, hypergamy, and other gendered issues that keep us from being "equal".  Further, feminism can't support marriage for the rank-and-file working class single mom because to do so would, indeed, make the lives of those women better . . . and happy women make lousy feminists.  Irate, sleep-deprived single moms who can't get a date are great feminists.  Happy, fulfilled wives and mothers who can manage themselves in a real cishetero long term relationship are lousy feminists, even to other feminists.  When outrage and anger are the coin of the realm, actually expecting an ideology to encourage people to be happier by compromising their ideals is futile.

So good luck, Ms. Sheffield, but understand that convincing women that they need to marry after you have spent two generations telling them that they are better off without - and that they do not need - a man has poisoned the well irreparably.  As men we're not inclined to go into a relationship where we are not "needed".  Modern technology and economics has made it possible for us to live comfortably and inexpensively with all the wonders of the world a click away, nearly all the comforts of a traditional home without the intense time and money investment required to sustain that traditional home.

More importantly, it can all be done without a wife . . . and until women can overcome feminism's war on wives, husbands, and marriage in general, millions of men are and will be content to live their lives without marriage.  And if that somehow hurts single women and single moms, then that's a reflection on feminism, not on the men who refuse to go against their own best interests.