SMV in Hollywood

Just in time for SMV week, Reddit serves up a chart showing the age range of male and female Oscar winners. It is, as expected, Red Pill approved.

As you can see, most actresses who win an Oscar for Best Actress do so between the ages of 21 and 35. In contrast, most actors who win an Oscar for Best Actor have to wait until they are between 36 and 50. Additionally, an actor over the age of 50 is twice as likely to receive an Oscar as an actress the same age. Where have we seen this pattern before? Think, think, think. Oh yeah, I remember!

People can argue that Sexual Market Value doesn’t exist until they are blue in the face but it will never change the fact that it does, and anyone with half a brain can see it. Ignore this truth at your own peril.

A World Without Bicycles

“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness and kindness, can be trained to do most things.”

 – Jilly Cooper

This quote sums up the modern view of men in a single sentence. Where once men were seen as innovators, thinkers and leaders they are now seen as barely even human – throwbacks to a simpler time, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who would drag the world down into the mud without women around to civilize and direct them.

Never mind of course that the world was built, and is mostly maintained, by men:

“It is men who have built the houses, the bridges, the roads, the railways, the dams, the factories, the ships, the canals, the monuments, the airports, the churches, the offices, the tunnels, the engines, the industrial machinery etc. …

It is men mostly who have worked in the factories, the furnaces, the sewers, the mines etc. …

It is men mostly who have, rightly or wrongly, fought the wars, fought the crimes, fought the elements, fought the odds etc. …

And it is men who have invented, discovered and done just about everything that has ever been invented, discovered and done.”

It is in this context that I would like to explore the notion made popular by Gloria Steinem that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

If men are indeed simple brutes, lumbering animals capable of producing things of value only under the watchful supervision of a woman, then it would logically follow that women could survive just fine without them. A cursory glance at history, however, turns this notion on its head in double-quick time. The greatest scientists, mathematicians, artists, philosophers, musicians, and writers throughout all of history have been almost exclusively male. The exceptions prove the rule.

What is true is that, thanks to the largely male-created technological wonderland we call Western Civilization, it is now possible for a woman to live comfortably on her own without a man in her life. So in that sense, no, she does not need a man. But men are very much necessary to the underlying fabric of society on which her lifestyle depends, so she very much does need men in general.

What’s happening, though, is that women have forgotten that it was men who made Western Civilization possible and that it’s men who do the dangerous and dirty jobs that keep it all going. Men as a group have become the collective butt of the joke as women imply that men are no longer necessary to society, and this is largely responsible for the rapidly burgeoning exodus of men away from the unwritten contract that holds civilization together.

Among other things the unwritten societal contract states that men as a group will always protect women as a group. You could call it the Bicycle Clause. It dictates that a woman without a man of her own, either temporarily or permanently, may procure assistance from a nearby man without any prior relationship existing between them or any expectation of reciprocation. This clause can be invoked for anything from changing a tire to intervening in a violent situation.

Simply put, any man must be ready to risk life and limb to protect any woman, even one he doesn’t know, at a moment’s notice. A man who saves a woman’s life is seen as a hero and a man who chooses not to get involved is seen as a coward. This section of the contract was based on the understanding that women were weaker than men and were therefore entitled to outside help while a man was responsible for taking care of himself.

But if women are at least equal (if not superior) to men then this part of the contract no longer applies. To demand equality is to renounce the clause in the contract that gives you special privileges based on the presumption of weakness. And yet still this notion persists that men should selflessly put women they don’t even know ahead of themselves:

“One of the features of the [Costa Concordia] disaster that has provoked a great deal of  comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and  children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape.”

But you simply can’t have it both ways. Either women are weaker than men and are in need of their protection, or they are equal to men and should take care of themselves. To blame men for looking out for their own interests when they have been taught that women don’t want or need their help is not only counterproductive but grossly unfair as well.

This is a binary question with only two possible answers – either women need a helping hand from men or they do not. Currently, the cultural imperative is that they do not, and therefore men are responding by letting women fend for themselves. This will continue for as long as the current cultural climate remains unchanged.

Simply put, in a world where bicycles are no longer desired none will be produced. Women are by their words and actions saying that they no longer need men, and are therefore creating for themselves a world without bicycles. It’s basic supply and demand. Let’s just hope that if and when women find themselves wishing they had a bicycle that they realize the reason they don’t have one is that they collectively insisted they didn’t need one.

Male Shaming and Sexual Market Value

**Please Note: I have taken the rough ideas from this blog and expanded them into a short book which you can download for free by clicking here. If you enjoy it and would like a hard copy you can buy a paperback version on Amazon.

The Rational Male just posted a fantastic essay that really got me thinking. As is commonly discussed on the manosphere, women reach their sexual market peak in their early 20’s while men don’t reach theirs until their mid to late 30’s. Rollo did a bang-up job of plotting this data on a chart so we can clearly see what this looks like:

SMV Curve, courtesy of Rational Male

There’s a lot to be gleaned from this seemingly simple chart, but there is one connection in particular that  I would like to draw your attention to. As the feminists have pounded into our heads over and over again a woman’s 20’s are for experimentation and fun, not to be wasted by settling down and committing to one man; and as you can see from the chart this period coincides precisely with a woman’s peak sexual market value.

Up until about age 30 women have a clear and massive advantage over the men their age in the dating field. But after that point the tables turn 180° almost instantaneously. Suddenly the men have the upper hand and the women are scrambling to find a seat before the music stops.

As I pondered this turn of events it occurred to me that all of these man-shaming articles we’re always seeing are aimed directly at men from their mid 20’s to late 30’s. That’s exactly smack dab in the middle of a man’s meteoric rise to sexual market heights, and I don’t think the timing is coincidental:

Yes, men should man up, take on the responsibilities of an adult, get a job, have a family and be a contributing member to society.

<snip>

[Men] can make choices to take control of their lives and be the men they are called to be if they just put down the game controls and choose a better direction. Sadly, at the moment, American women are apparently still in need of a few good men.

In times past the older generations would steer young women into marriage to a man with potential. Sure, in a young woman’s eyes it might look like she was settling for less than the ideal, but the older generations knew that a woman’s market value was fleeting while a man’s market value would continue growing for years to come. The time for a woman to land one of these up-and-comers was while her value was high and his was comparatively low. The man benefited early on by having a beautiful, fertile bride and she benefited later by having a man who was working steadily to provide a comfortable life for herself and their children.What our current system is effectively doing is telling women that they are entitled to spend their years of high market value slutting it up and trying to land that elusive alpha male, and then turning around and telling men that they should be sacrificing their high market value years to create a soft landing for these women who have now (by necessity) decided to step off of the carousal and into the open arms of a waiting beta provider.

But what’s happening is that men are starting to recognize their own market potential. Most have spent a decade or more begging for scraps but are now finally coming into their own as a powerhouse of masculinity ready to divide and conquer. Why would they or should they “man up” and set about providing for these women in decline just as their own sexual market value is providing them their turn to ride high on the hog?

As usual what it comes down to is that the feminists think that women should have their cake and eat it, too. Sure, they couch it in pretty language by saying that these women have matured and are ready to settle down, but the numbers don’t lie. These women have squandered their few precious years of beauty and fertility on cad after cad and now they want a beta male coming into his prime to do what they would not – give up his SMV advantage in the interests of a committed monogamous relationship. That’s what this whole “manning up” movement is really all about. The fact that this generation of men is insisting on their fair share of the equality that the sexual revolution has wrought chaps these ladies’ hides.

The last few decades have been pretty generous to women who wanted to ride the carousel and still settle down with a beta provider later on as the men were still adjusting to the new system. But as today’s men wake up to their own sexual market value and realize that there isn’t a whole lot of incentive to “man up” and marry a woman who is past her prime when he could be out playing the field with the younger gals, the full picture of what the sexual revolution means for Western Civilization is coming into focus. And the women who played their cards foolishly don’t like this new hand they’ve been dealt one bit.

Marriage 2.0 and The Church

Defining Marriage
What is marriage? No, seriously, I want to know what you think it is. Chances are you have only a vague notion and not a real working definition. The reason for this is that there are two different definitions, both of which are correct, because when you marry in a church you are actually agreeing to two separate contracts. Confused? Don’t worry, I was too. Here they are, stripped down and simplified:

Marriage Contract Number One: Biblical Marriage
This is the verbal contract that couples agree to when they stand with their beloved before God and family and vow to remain together until separated by death.

Marriage Contract Number Two: Legal Marriage
This is the written contract a man and woman sign in order for their marriage to be recognized by the state and/or country in which they reside.

Now, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having both a Biblical Marriage and a Legal Marriage. The two can coexist peacefully. The problem is that the legal definition has changed so much in the last several decades that the two are now fundamentally incompatible, and the legal definition has superseded the Biblical one to the point where people aren’t really married in a Biblical sense at all. Oh, you think I’m exaggerating? Let’s just see about that.

Marriage 1.0
Up until the mid-1900’s the legal definition of marriage reflected the Biblical definition pretty closely. Based on thousands of years worth of human history (not to mention human nature) this contract stated that marriage was to be between one man and one woman, and that it was dissolvable under only the direst of circumstances. If one person wanted out it was necessary to establish “fault”. Whichever party was determined to be “at fault” was typically dealt with harshly after the marriage was dissolved.

For example, if a woman was unfaithful and her husband decided to terminate the marriage she was typically awarded nothing from the marriage. The husband would be given custody of any kids and she was out on the street to rebuild her life however she could. And if a man was unfaithful, his wife would be given custody of the kids and he would be required to split the marital assets with her, in addition to paying child support and possibly alimony.

Marriage 2.0
The concept of marriage remained largely unchanged from time immemorial until the middle of the last century. But this traditional definition of marriage has undergone an extreme facelift in the last 50 years. Many things have altered the sexual landscape, including the birth control pill and legalized abortion, but none have been as destructive to marriage as No-Fault Divorce. Beginning in 1970, it was now no longer necessary for a person to have a good reason to abandon their marriage vows; simple boredom was reason enough.

The net affect of the new legal definition of marriage was to render Biblical Marriage null and void. Marriage vows are now mere ceremony, they are not legally binding at all. The only legally binding part of the ceremony is the signing of the marriage license itself , and the license puts both parties under the authority of the law which says that the marriage can be dissolved by either party at any time and for any reason – regardless of what was agreed to in the vows. In this way marriage has become a trick, a bait-and-switch operation being carried out by the church on behalf of the state. Since the document being signed does not reflect the verbal agreement, the contract is quite literally fraudulent.

The Fallout
What effect has this had on marriage? Well, for starters, as soon as No-Fault Divorce was signed into law, the divorce rate in America went through the roof. And, contrary to what you might think, the vast majority of divorces are actually filed by women. While there is some truth to the urban legend of men trading in their wives for younger models, the numbers clearly show that it’s much more likely that the wife will leave than the husband. Take a look at the following chart:

If men were abandoning their aging wives in droves we would expect to see the number of divorces climbing as women age, but instead we see exactly the opposite. Women are divorcing at the highest rates while they are at the peak of their sexual prime, which suggests that many women are simply unhappy in their marriages and hoping to try their luck with someone else. Granted, every marriage is unique and people get divorced for a myriad of reasons, however the point I’m trying to make is this – if you get married, there is a good chance your wife could walk out on you. I’m not saying this will happen, but I’m saying that it does happen, and more often than you think. Therefore it is only prudent to examine the facts before you tie the knot.

The Facts
Fact #1: Over 50% of marriages now end in divorce.
Fact #2: Women file around 75% of all divorces.
Fact #3: During divorce women typically receive half of the marital assets regardless of the length of the marriage.
Fact #4: Women get primary custody of the kids over 90% of the time.
Fact #5: If she gets custody of the kids, you will be on the hook for child support at least until they turn eighteen. Sometimes you’re even required to put them through college.
Fact #6: Your child support payments are based on your income at the time of instatement; if you lose your job or take a pay cut your child support payments often do not change to reflect your new financial situation.
Fact #7: If you are unable to pay your child support for any reason, they can put you in jail.
Fact #8: The court doesn’t care about your visitation rights. If your ex doesn’t uphold her end of the agreement on her own, nobody is going to force her.
Fact #9: Many women claim physical or sexual abuse in order to keep your involvement after divorce to a minimum.
Fact #10: 1 out of 25 children are raised by a man who mistakenly believes that he is the father.
Fact #11: Even if you can prove that a child isn’t biologically yours, you will very likely still be required to pay child support in the event of divorce.

Keep in mind that you could find yourself facing one or more of the above circumstances regardless of how hard you try to be a good husband and/or father. That’s the insidiousness of no-fault divorce. You could be the best father in the world and still find yourself relegated to the role of walking wallet and weekend babysitter to kids who barely know you. The simple truth is that divorce is a modern reality, and it can ruin your life. Divorce is marketed to women of all ages as a great way to be true to themselves and maximize their options in life. And if you think that this can’t possibly happen to you if you marry a Christian woman, think again. The church’s divorce rate is almost as high as the general population’s, and the church has begun to actively encourage women to consider divorce as an option. Read Dalrock’s excellent analysis of the movie Fireproof if you don’t believe me, it will open your eyes.

Try this on for size. Let’s say you get married right out of college. Five years later you’ve got a house in suburbs and three kids – ages 4, 3 and six months. You’re working late hours trying to climb the corporate ladder and your wife is working part time as a receptionist at a doctor’s office to help pay the bills. It’s been over a month since the two of you last made love and the long hours at the office are starting to take their toll on both of you. One day she decides that she just isn’t satisfied in the marriage anymore. She wants out, so she divorces you. She gets the house, the kids, and about a third of your income. For the next 18 years. And you didn’t even do anything wrong, you were just trying to provide for your family.

Now you’re now living in a tiny apartment and sending most of your expendable income to your ex-wife for child support payments. But let’s say that your youngest child, well, turns out he’s not really yours after all. Turns out your wife had herself a little fling with a surgical resident and neglected to tell you about it. You get a DNA test and it proves that he’s the father, not you. But guess what? It doesn’t matter. Your name is on the birth certificate so that makes him your son. You will pay for his upbringing or a policeman will put you in jail.

This may be a fictional story, but it happens to guys just like you all the time. I’m not saying that this necessarily will happen, or that all women are like this. What I am saying is that this is legal. A woman can do this to you if she wants to and there’s not a thing you can do about it. You need to wrap your brain around this concept. Wedding vows are irrelevant, all that matters is the law, and the law says that if your wife wants to leave you she is free to do so anytime she wants, for any reason she wants. That’s just reality.

The Solution
I propose that there are two solutions, a personal solution and a church-wide solution. For the time being the only thing you can really do is to hire a lawyer and get a prenuptial agreement, then simply refuse to get married unless it’s signed. This is especially important if you have accumulated any decent amount money, property or other assets as a single man. Please be aware that this will not help you when it comes to issues such as child support, but it will help to minimize the damage in other areas. I know that this is not very romantic but it’s a very necessary precaution. The only reason most women don’t want a prenup is because they aren’t risking nearly as much as men by taking the plunge. Remember – marriage is a legal contract, not a romantic fairytale. Any woman who demands that you put yourself in very real legal danger for the sake of her warm fuzzy feelings is not the kind of woman you want to marry.

The larger solution is for the church as a collective to adopt this same strategy on a nationwide scale. I believe that the church itself is actually a big part of the problem because they are knowingly allowing couples to enter into marriage with a fraudulent contract. In Marriage 2.0, wedding vows no longer mean anything as far as the law is concerned and yet churches continue to perform marriages on behalf of the state anyway. Are churches servants of the state that they should marry people with a contract that contradicts God’s laws about Marriage?

I say it’s time for churches to stand up to this nonsense and start demanding that the legal documentation for a marriage reflect the vows that people make before God. Churches should come up with some kind of general prenuptial agreement that, among other things, reinstates the requirement of “fault” in order to be granted a divorce and then refuse to marry couples who won’t sign it. This way nobody’s feelings are hurt by their partner’s lack of trust and the marriages performed within the church will have some legal teeth to them.

The effect this would have would be to essentially create two marriage contracts, one for the state and one for the church. You can be married in the sight of the state with just the state’s contract, but in order to have your marriage be valid before God you must agree to the additional provisions put forth by the church. This type of optional contract should be perfectly legal because it’s essentially just a prenup, which is already legal. Couples not wishing to sign additional agreement could still be married by a judge or Justice of the Peace; they don’t have to get married in a church if they don’t want to subject themselves to the authority of the church.

With this solution the church can shore up the legal shortcomings in the marriage contract to better reflect Biblical Marriage while avoiding stepping on the toes of those who like marriage just fine the way it is now. It is my belief that by making this one simple change we will quickly see a noticeable drop in the divorce rate within the church. I also think that people who marry with the additional contract will be much happier in their marriages as they will no longer have to worry about their spouse abandoning them without good cause; this goes for women as well as men.

The system we have right now is clearly broken, and we know exactly what broke it. It’s high time we got busy fixing it.

One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill: Examining the Modern Concept of Rape

I just read a news article titled “No charges against NYPD boss’ son after rape claim.” In my old Blue Pill days I would have skipped right over this article without even reading it. Now that I’ve swallowed the Red Pill, headlines like this stick out like a sore thumb. The true-blue FOX News tries to make it sound like this is a story about a guy who raped a woman and got away with it because his daddy is a policeman, but the facts simply don’t support this interpretation. Let’s take a look, shall we?

“The police commissioner’s TV host son has been cleared of the prospect of criminal charges of raping a woman he met for a drink, but it’s not clear how quickly he might return to his spot as a jocular morning-show host.”

Okay, so right off the bat we know that this isn’t a prowler-in-a-dark-alley kind of rape. These two met before the “rape” occurred for the express purpose of consuming alcoholic beverages. We also know that this guy is not only the son of a policeman but also a highly regarded TV personality as well. So what’s the deal with these rape allegations? Let’s read on.

“The woman, who works at a downtown law firm, told police she met Kelly on the street; they then arranged to meet for drinks three days later at a bar at the nearby South Street Seaport, a second person familiar with the investigation has said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss details not made public. The woman and Kelly stayed in contact afterward, the first person said.”

Now the picture is starting to come into focus a little. Two more snippets should make this all crystal clear:

“At some point, the woman’s boyfriend learned the story and became enraged, that person said.”

and finally:

“The woman told police late last month that Kelly raped her in her lower Manhattan office after they went out for drinks on Oct. 8, assaulting her while she wasn’t capable of consenting to sex, a person familiar with the investigation said.”

And there you have it. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is Exhibit A for what now passes for rape in our culture. Have you heard about the college rape epidemic? This about sums it up. Let me explain.

First, we need to understand why rape is considered to be so much worse than a simple assault. Back in the old days people were expected to get married before having sex, and a single woman who wasn’t a virgin was considered to be tainted goods. This is because the societal contract was all about getting men into the civilizational machine; and in order for a man to be sure that the woman he was about to marry would bear children to him and him alone, she had to present her virginity to him at the time of their marriage as a form of proof of fidelity. Pretty simple.

Because virginity was such a valuable commodity back then, rape was considered to be the most heinous of acts. Unlike mere battery, which also causes great physical and emotional pain, a forcible rape also stole from a woman her most valuable tool for attracting a suitable mate, thus practically guaranteeing that she would spend the rest of her days in great hardship as she tried to make it through life without a husband.

But the sexual revolution changed the notion of sexual purity being a woman’s most important asset. Beginning in the 1960’s women could now sleep with whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and society was forced to accept this as the new normal. Virginity until marriage became a thing of the past. This was a complete reversal of the system as designed and the effects of such a dramatic change are only now beginning to be truly understood.

For decades the system lumbered on, lopsided as it was. Sure, people slept together (and often with many partners) before marriage, but they usually did get married eventually. But as men wake up to the new paradigm they are wondering why they should bother getting married at all. The main reason men wanted to get married in the first place was for access to sex and now they can already get all the sex they want, and without that pesky lifetime commitment part.  On top of this, marriage has become a very dangerous institution for men and many now feel that it’s simply no longer worth the legal risks for the marginal benefits that marriage provides over single life.

So what does all this have to do with rape? Well, as a society we’ve put the sexual cart before the horse. Commitment is supposed to come before sex, but feminists said that sex before commitment should be not only condoned but encouraged.  Now that men are getting easy access to sex they have no reason to commit. And because women are struggling to get a man to commit to them after having sex, they are lashing out with cries of rape as retribution toward men who don’t come through with the expected relationship. By using sex as bait rather than a reward, rape becomes something that can be defined retroactively.

If a woman has sex with a man and finds out later that he isn’t really the president of a large multinational corporation, it was rape. If she has sex with a man and it turns out he’s not really Jewish or that he wears a rug, it was rape. In fact, if a woman regrets having sex with a man for any reason whatsoever she can claim rape. And, importantly, a rape claim also makes a great escape hatch when charged with infidelity. If she has sex with a man on the sly and her boyfriend finds out about it, all she has to do is cry rape and the very act of claiming it makes it so.

So what we have in this news story is a woman in a relationship who met an interesting guy. They hit it off and made plans to meet for drinks. They spent an evening on the town, drinking and giggling and then went back to her office for some passionate, tipsy sex. They both apparently enjoyed themselves enough to keep in contact afterwards. Maybe she was even entertaining thoughts about ditching her current beau and trading up. But then her boyfriend found out about Mr. Personality. He’s pissed and she’s embarrassed, so she blames the other man. She was drunk. He took advantage. She feels so used! And her boyfriend bought it hook, line and sinker:

“Before she went to police, the woman’s boyfriend confronted the commissioner in person at a public event, saying Greg Kelly had ruined his girlfriend’s life but declining to elaborate on the spot when asked what he meant, police spokesman Paul Browne said.”

This woman got caught cheating and rather than admit to her own infidelity she decided to just blame this guy and let him take the fall. Now it’s on him to prove that a rape didn’t occur.  Meanwhile his good name gets dragged through the mud while hers is kept out of the press because she’s the helpless “victim”:

“The AP does not name people who report being sexually assaulted unless they agree to be identified or come forward publicly.”

But there’s more to learn from this story. Remember how the article said that she was assaulted while she “wasn’t capable of consenting to sex?” That’s because they met for drinks:

“When they finally met for drinks at a South Street Seaport area bar, the woman told police that they each used credit cards and took turns paying, consuming drinks until she became intoxicated, according to the source.

She said she then invited Kelly to her office building where they had sex in her boss’ office, according to the source.

The woman, whom authorities are not identifying, described her condition to authorities as “woozy” and said she was not a willing participant, the source said.”

They consumed drinks until she became intoxicated. You see, according to the latest laws being written, if a man has sex with a woman who has had so much as one alcoholic drink beforehand, then it’s automatically rape because she can’t legally consent to sex if she’s consumed alcohol. That’s right. A man can drink and still consent to sex, but a woman can’t. A man’s intoxication is considered to be a moot point while a woman’s is the determining factor in whether or not she is capable of consenting.

This woman works at a law office, so she surely knew that the law was on her side.  If she drank alcohol before they had “consensual” sex, then this was a rape as far as the law is concerned – regardless of who was initiating, regardless of the fact that the man was also drinking and regardless of how much they both enjoyed it.

This same scenario is playing out all over the country, especially at colleges where a simple allegation of rape is enough to get a young man expelled. At school, the rule has long been that a person is guilty until proven innocent because the system in place relies on “preponderance of the evidence” rather than the much more stringent “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” This new legal definition is slowly but surely spreading to criminal trials as well, and it risks turning a large portion of men into rapists by technicality.

Ironically, this new paradigm places women back into the very bondage from which the sexual revolution supposedly freed them. If a man can legally consent to sex after drinking alcohol and a woman cannot, does that not put men at an advantage? Think about it. Alcohol consumption, especially for the younger crowd, is a way of life. What happens when men can go out on the town and get a good buzz on while insisting that their dates drink nothing but Diet Coke all evening? I’m not saying that this would necessarily happen, but it could.

Legally we are saying that men can handle their liquor but women, the poor dears, need to be treated like children; incapable of making any decisions after a drop of alcohol has passed through their delicate lips. Sounds a little sexist when you put it that way, doesn’t it? This new definition of rape is as offensive to women as it is to men, and it trivializes the physical and psychological pain that true rape victims experience. It also ruins the lives and reputations of men who are charged with committing a heinous crime that doesn’t even resemble what actually took place.

Luckily for Mr. Kelly, he’s a relatively well-known guy with friends in high places. That’s the only reason he got out of this with only his reputation soiled. Far from his political connections allowing him to get away with rape, they were actually the only thing that saved him from going to jail for something that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place. In most cases the police don’t bother to actually investigate cases like this. It’s her word against his, and they’ve got bigger fish to fry. Guilty. Next case. Let this be a warning to you because if you ever find yourself in a similar situation you won’t be so lucky.

Rediscovering Masculinity

It’s time for men to “man up”. That’s the general consensus from social commentators the world over. And you know what? They’re absolutely right. Just not in the way that they think they are.

Today’s young men have clearly lost their way. They don’t know what manhood even means in a modern society. Our generation has been raised in a culture that defines manhood as an extension of womanhood. Men are regarded as under-evolved women. Bumbling brutes that, with proper training and encouragement, can overcome their primal testosterone-driven urges to become almost human.

It begins with childhood. Boys are being raised in a world that discourages adventure in favor of entertainment and discourages risk in favor of safety. Boys with stronger wills who aren’t as easily steered into passivity are simply drugged into a state of complacency. Impetuous masculinity is seen as a character flaw that must be stamped out at all costs. The rugged individualism that built this country is fading into the memory hole as more and more men enter adulthood without any knowledge whatsoever of what it means to be a man. They are drifting through our feminist utopia where everyone is exactly the same, wondering why they feel so empty inside.

“We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war . . . our Great Depression is our lives.”

– Tyler Durden, Fight Club

As today’s young men wander aimlessly through life they slowly begin to adapt to the world with which they are presented. With no inspiration and no cause to unite them many men are simply dropping out of the rat race and into lives of sterile mediocrity. Self-medicating with pornography and video games* they merely survive from one day to the next. Others marry but are unhappy anyway because their role as a father is considered to be extraneous, if not completely unnecessary, and their wives treat them as if they don’t even matter.

What these men all have in common is that they are sick and tired of the lot they’ve inherited. They’ve had it with the shaming language and they’ve had it with unfulfilling lives of servitude to others who don’t appreciate them at all. So they are turning on, tuning in and dropping out, as the saying goes. The reaction to this has been overwhelming. Society needs these men to do what men have always done because the whole house of cards will come tumbling down if they don’t, so everyone from journalists to pastors are urging men to “man up” before we all end up in mud huts fighting over the last piece of squirrel.

And I agree, men do need to “man up”, but not the way feminists think they do. You see, when a feminist says that men need to “man up” what they mean is that men need to put their shoulder back to the plow like the good little slaves they are and suffer through their miserable lives without complaining about the unfair situation they are being forced to endure. Up until now this strategy has worked just fine, but there’s a change in the wind. Men are tired of being treated like they are expendable, they are tired of having all the responsibility while women have all the choices. They are tired of being wage slaves, walking wallets and the butt of every joke.

Thankfully we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. In spite of all of the feminist propaganda over the last several decades masculinity is making a comeback. Thanks to the internet men all over the world are connecting in ways that would have been impossible just a decade ago. They are discovering that they are not alone and that they are not crazy after all. Sites like The Art of Manliness are booming as men discover that masculinity is a good thing. Yes, men are getting in touch with their masculine side.

The time has indeed come for men to “man up”, and the revolution has already begun. But the form that masculinity is taking is a whole new animal, no longer restricted by the social conventions of the past. Feminism changed what it means to be a woman, therefore it has by extension changed what it means to be a man. Manhood will no longer be defined solely by how it benefits women or society in general just as womanhood is no longer defined solely in terms of childbearing and the rearing of children. Feminism has, for the first time ever, created a world in which women can take care of themselves and men are free to do whatever they want with their lives. The rules have completely changed. Men simply need to open their eyes and see.

It’s time for men to stop giving in to the demands of feminism. Stop begging for table scraps at the house your forefathers built. Being a man is not a bad thing and you are not broken. Take a deep breath and savor the freedom that is all around you. Stand up for yourself. You are a man, and this is your life. Live it. Quit wallowing in the pit that society has dumped you in and do something.

Go outside. Walk through a creek in your bare feet. Meet people. Build something. Do something risky just for the thrill of doing something risky. Ride a bike without a helmet just to feel the wind in your hair. Travel. Eat red meat. Decide what you want your life to look like and make it so. Masculinity will look different for everyone, but if you’re doing it right it should bear the hallmarks common to all great men of the past. Independence. Courage. Strength. These are words that should resonate in your life.

Are you married? Then make your marriage the best marriage it can be. Stop letting your wife walk all over you and stop apologizing for being a man. Contrary to what the feminists say, women really do want their men to be men and they want them to take the lead. Reclaim the position of captain in your home. Learn about the fitness tests that women use to test your mettle so that you will know when to give in and when to stand firm. Are you single? Learn about game. Game is not a magic pill, but neither is it snake oil. You’ve been fed a load of bologna when it comes to attracting women and Game simply exposes these errors and shows you what women really respond to. It’s a tool. Use it.

Your life can be whatever you want it to be, but no matter what you choose to do with your life, do it with all your heart. You only get to go around once in this life so make each day count. Stop marching to society’s drum and quit feeling sorry for yourself. Create your own road map and get going. In the immortal words of “Doc” Brown, you’re future hasn’t been written yet. The time for action is now. Man Up!

*Please understand that I’m not bashing gamers here. If you love playing video games that’s perfectly fine, there’s no shame whatsoever in being a gamer. I’m referring to men who play video games simply as a distraction to numb the pain of everyday life instead of getting out there and doing something they really want to do.

Learning the Wrong Lessons from Titanic

I’ve been intrigued by the story of the Titanic since I was a child. But, like most people who’ve studied the disaster, I completely missed the most obvious lesson it teaches us about society. I always thought that the Titanic was a primarily a lesson about class and the value we place on the “haves” versus the “have nots”, but while there is some truth to this there is an even more obvious and glaring disparity in this story. Let’s crunch the numbers, shall we?

Here’s a chart showing the percentage of men and women saved from each class from highest to lowest:

Passenger Category	Percentage Saved
Women, First Class	97%
Women, Crew	87%
Women, Second Class	86%
Women, Third Class	46%
Men, First Class	33%
Men, Crew	22%
Men, Third Class	16%
Men, Second Class	8%

Disregarding crew members (there were only 23 women in the crew) the class separation between the female survivors is striking. Nearly all of the first class women and 90% of the second class women survived, but over half of the women in third class perished. Class separation? You bet.

But take another look at that chart. Despite a survival rate of only 46%, there were still more female survivors in third class than male survivors in first class. Let me repeat that. More third class women survived than first class men. And by quite a large margin, I might add. So why all the talk about class separation? Simple. It’s because when the ship went down a hundred years ago chivalry was still in full swing. The men were expected to go down with the ship, it was in their contract so their deaths didn’t count. They didn’t even register. Therefore the takeaway from this story at the time it occurred was that the third class passengers were prevented from getting to the boats simply because they weren’t rich enough to deserve one.

That’s what bothered people about the sinking back then, and the same narrative still persists 100 years later. Hindsight, however, paints a very different picture – one that has little to do with class. As we’ve already seen, having two X-chromosomes was a much better predictor of who survived than class was. The men were expected to give up their seats so that’s what they did, even though doing so meant facing the very real possibility of an icy grave. Even John Jacob Astor, the richest man on the ship, gave up his seat on a lifeboat for a woman. That this reality continues to be ignored after a century of feminism shows just ingrained the mindset of male disposability is in our culture.

But of course this all happened a hundred years ago. Women didn’t even have the right to vote back then. Since then we’ve made great strides in equality; surely if a ship went down today the men wouldn’t be expected to just step aside while the women take all the lifeboats. We’re all equals now. Right?

I’m so glad you asked! Thanks to cosmic coincidence (divine intervention?) we now know the answer. A few weeks ago, just months shy of the 100th anniversary of  the sinking of Titanic, a cruise ship called Costa Concordia ran aground off of Italy. How did things play out this time around?

Well, for starters the order from the crew was still “Women and Children First”. Old habits die hard and all. But a funny thing happened – the men on the ship pretty much ignored them. It seems that after a century of being told that women and men are the same, men have finally caught on. Married men were refusing to abandon their families and single men were pushing their way past pregnant women. Sounds like a victory for feminism to me.

But what do women think about this sudden turn of events? Are they savoring the equality? Not so much. As a matter of fact, many women are very upset by the idea that men will no longer risk their lives to let strange women escape a sinking ship before them. How could men be so selfish, don’t they know they have a duty to protect the women around them?

And there’s the disconnect. Women, in general, haven’t really thought through the consequences of feminism very well. As a matter of fact most of society hasn’t. But there are always consequences when you rearrange a civilization. Every action has and equal and opposite reaction. What we’re seeing all over the western world is that women want the benefits that femism has given them but they don’t want the responsibilities that go along with them. Whether it’s evacuating a sinking ship or engaging in risky sexual behavior women feel that the rights belong to them while the responsibilities belong to the men. And so far men have continued to shoulder most of the responsibility because, well, that’s what men are supposed to do.

But cracks are beginning to appear. Men are finally waking up to the new reality and are starting to wonder why it is that they are still expected to fill the same old social role while women can do and be anything they choose. Why should a man always be the one holding the bag of responsibility if women are no different? Shouldn’t this whole equality thing be a little more, you know, equal? George Orwell answered that question years ago:

“All are equal. But some are more equal than others.”