The manosphere wants to live the thug life.

Even among supposedly Christian men, there seems to be a great desire to live like the ghettoest of ghetto black men.  They seem to think ghetto black men in America have the sweetest deal and that their lives would be perfect if they could only live the thug life without the violent death risk. I’ve finally figured it out with the manosphere and to a lesser extent the rest of the dissident right.  They obsess over black people in the ghetto and their problems because they really do want that life.  They seem to think ghetto life consists of people showering money on you like a rap video, women being simultaneously beautiful, employed but also Super Housewives, and of a life where all the men have “rights” and “benefits” and the women do…everything.  Earn all the money, do all the housework, offer unlimited sex on demand, raise all the children and never ever mess up the men’s sweet ride by asking anything for themselves, even marriage.
No other explanation has sufficiently explanatory power than this astonishingly obvious one.
Advertisements

What not to do when promoting traditional gender roles

Just stop giving fodder to feminist and leftist critics.  It’s not true that men are the only ones who came up with anything useful ever.  It’s easily disprovable and where it’s not, there isn’t any data at all because we’re talking prehistory anyhow.  Further, this whole presentation of women as useless except presumably for teh babies  is Pashtun, not Western Christian Patriarchal.  Patriarchies that like women and think they’re groovy are the ones that find it easier to build excess wealth for the community.  If you really believe women have this role to submit to and serve men, they can’t be properly effective in that role without being taken seriously as fully human, fully realized beings.

The first post I linked to is trying to debunk the idea of the “strong independent woman”, but it does so by reducing women to useless appendices incapable of bringing any value to, well, existence.  Except of course having babies.  It veers well into the exact kind of transactional mentality that feminists love to claim proves All Conservatives Are Like That.  It’s not even a Christian view of male and female roles.  It’s exaggerated, demonstrably false and just an excuse to be petty and mean to what end I knoweth not.  Normal men like women and normal women aren’t caught up in some idea that they are particularly independent in the first place.  Normal women have zero problem accepting that they exist as part of a community.

The second link is someone talking a very little about the Pew data on SAHMs but mostly ranting about how housewives are useless eaters and glorying in how A Man He Knows Did It Better Anyhow.

Much of femininity and marriage is socially constructed but you can socially construct it well or you can socially construct it stupidly and marriage and patriarchy are BETTER, so there’s no need to dismiss the contributions of women and play into the feminist frame that supporters of traditional gender roles he-man woman-hate.  Let’s stop socially constructing marriage and traditionally oriented gender roles stupidly.  Separate from the feminist-fodder issue, it just scares off normal women who would otherwise delight in the chance to tend the hearth and home and in other, subtler ways contribute to the upkeep of their communities and villages.

ETA: Apparently Mr. Pashtun Impersonator wrote an angry angerson screed that I missed when this first went up, lol.

Most women don’t like bad boys.

I know, I know, I haven’t got manly manparts flapping in the breeze to serve as “data”, but I do, for good or ill, have over a decade of plain old life experience with a wide sampling of mostly American women and a modest number of non-American women.  They’ve been conservative, they’ve been liberal, they’ve been white, they’ve been black, they’ve been Latin or Asian from more than one of those nations.  They’ve been respectable and they have been quite unrespectable.  And over and over, they were not making a beeline for promiscuous and/or “bad boys”.

Some did, certainly, and it is very true that some women will always be interested in that kind of guy with no loyalty, honor or often even charm.

Any discussion of how “all chicks dig bad boys” is guilty of extrapolating from a small population out towards all women.  This is called apex fallacy, even though it doesn’t require that the minority slice be at the apex.  Most women don’t want a guy obsessed with getting frisky all the time.  They also don’t want a criminal.  The Wire has many problems as a TV series, but the distinct lack of girl action for most of the low-level male criminals is pretty accurate.  Even most poor women aren’t getting jiggy with bad boys.  People only see the ones that do, but they aren’t a majority or even a plurality.

What is going on is that some personality disordered white women from the professional managerial classes have developed strange and deviant preferences in men, and their weird problem is somehow supposed to be representative of all women.  Nobody thought this way in the past about the small number of poor women with such preferences.

Even with the array of incentives to misbehave in marriage or cohabitation, most women don’t go running for Thuggy McThuggerson.  They still mostly end up with average guys or spend months/years in self-imposed celibacy with long gaps between dates or relationships.  Because normal women aren’t into bad boys and never really will be no matter how galvanically society changes.

Feudal women vs. modern women.

This is a quickie revisiting this post I made about how there is an entire contingent of women who find loyalty and stability sexy.  There seems to be a distinct inability in some men to accept this as a concept.  However, it’s not at all true that women as a class find marriage-worthy men less sexy.  Modern women do.  I don’t mean modern in the sense of “uses technology” but rather “completely operates under an essentially individualistic, self-focused, Enlightenment-derived mindset”.

This type of woman is obviously relatively common and due to fitting into narratives of modern mores being successfully propagated, appears to be presented as Ur-woman.  However, I think that the existence of feudally inclined women (i.e., women with a pre-modern view of life and love) is wildly underestimated on all sides.  In my own referenced post, I used the terms “peasant woman” and “aristocrat woman”, but one can just combine those into “feudal woman” and come out the same.

I am a feudal woman and I have even found many feudal women among bohemian folks in my years on this earth.  It is similar to the way that many right-wing people can have a liberally oriented mindset and some left-wing people can have a conservative mindset.  Feudal affinity in women is simply ordering one’s life according to a more feudal notion of life, love, community and romantic attachments despite the ways in which modernity works against such views.

Even in a world of dazzling wealth and extreme pressure to be self-focused, there are women who order their lives around devotion to community, ethny, kin and nation and expect the men they are attracted to to do the same.  And find themselves not attracted to men who don’t show some signs of this collective orientation and lack of individualism. Basically, just as a pretty goodly fraction of men do not find women of highly negotiable virtue appealing, there seem, if one is viewing the world as it is, to be quite a goodly number of women who aren’t into the cad thing and do not find them appealing.

Peasant women find decent men attractive

Women with a peasant’s (or aristocrat’s if they come from that background) mentality find PUAs and most of the “game” playbook unsexy because it represents disloyalty and “feral” instability. Women who find loyalty and devotion to kin attractive don’t find a steady guy who takes his commitments to family and friends seriously to be unattractive. They marry those guys and it’s not settling because it’s precisely what they want in a man. And they tend to marry those guys before 30 (even in UMCland).

What I am wondering, though, is how common is that mentality among women these days? It seems like women up and down the class ladder don’t want to marry. The “white picket fence” perfection requirement is a sign that they aren’t really interested. There is something to the idea that some women are too prideful to marry. At least with some Christian women, they think they have to give up everything they think of as agency to marry even though they can usually see this isn’t true among the married women near them.

And I’ve come over the years to understand that some women don’t find loyalty in men unsexy– they find it threatening, as if his loyalty is a commentary on their life and moral fiber. So the idea that modern women are “feral” and “chasing tingles” misses a lot of the reasons why women aren’t marrying, particularly Christian women.

I refer to peasant (or very far up the class tree, aristocrat) mentality because a woman with that mindset doesn’t have a self-image that focuses on self-as-individual.  She defines herself in terms of her own kin and ethny and patrimony (where such exists).  She might join with another people through outmarriage to someone from another ethny, but she doesn’t think of the choice in individualist terms.  So unlike the meme that has infiltrated all the way into the mainstream right-wing of conservativeland, peasant women aren’t thrilled by violence with no point, by men with no loyalties and attachments beyond the next moment, by unstable sterility marketing itself as dangerous. Such women don’t like danger, they find devotion and demonstrations of loyalty to the right things (church, family, friends) to be what they want in a man.  They might well be blind to some men, but these are the women who are blind to feral men.

This is repurposed from a starter comment about some other stuff entirely and was inspired further by yet another manosphere blog post about the ferality of women as though it was in fact purely natural and not an artifact of prosperity.  I question that because it simply doesn’t make sense or match up with observed reality.

But then again, how many women are ok with hearing they have a peasant mentality?  It’s not all good.  Such a high level of risk aversion can sometimes make it hard to seize opportunities when they appear.  Still, I do wonder if it doesn’t still represent a substantial minority of women.  One can hope.

Understanding why the manosphere is full of conventionally attractive black women

This is one of those little curiosities that seem like nothing much but reveal some unsettling things about where people feel they have to go to find pieces of normal life, however confused, distorted and (sometimes wildly) inaccurate.

The manosphere is full of black women who are conventionally attractive.  They are probably around their representation in the general American population (so about 3%, as they can’t all be pretty).  They are noticeably more attractive on average than the white women who make up the majority of women hanging around in the manosphere, but this is of course selection bias.

I had wondered WHY MY GOODNESS WHYYYYYYY and then I understood.

Black women can’t be conservative politically and interested in non-dowdy expressions of femininity.  They can pick one, but not both.  Conservatives want their black women dowdy and unfashionable and everyone else wants them politically and socially liberal.  Except in the silly old manosphere.  There a black woman can fight the dowdy within and also be politically conservative. And this is exactly what you see.  You see a bunch of black women who like being feminine and frilly and soft, but who are politically and socially conservative.

We gotta find a new place for these dames to hang out, stat.

Regular conservatives could help out by just not flipping out about black women wanting to look some way other than dowdy or granola-crunchy.