Category Archives: Eat the Young

Sex Ed Hypocrisy

I found this both amusing and angering:

EDMONTON – An Edmonton teenager and her mother have successfully filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging the Edmonton Public School District’s use of a Christian fundamentalist abstinence education program infringed upon their rights as non-Christians.

Dawson’s mother Kathy, an agnostic who supports sex education, signed the permission slip for Emily to attend CALM’s sexual education classes. She was shocked when Emily texted her to say the “sex ed” class was being taught by an anti-abortion activist, from the American-based Pregnancy Care Centre.

The leftist theocrats spent decades ramming “sexual education” into the public education system against the vocal opposition of Christians, the right, and anybody with any sanity because indoctrinating elementary-school children in the joys of sodomy and pedophilia is essential for the leftist goal of destroying the family.

One pro-life Christian group manages to infiltrate their sexual indoctrination sessions and make it vaguely pro-family and suddenly it becomes a human rights issue that must be dealt with in court.

It’s funny how suddenly teaching children about sex is wrong when it comes from a point of view of Christian morality rather than nihilistic hedonism.

Remember, its all about forcing their views and destroying traditional values, nothing more.

To add even more joy, this is how the article ends:

It’s absurd. CALM isn’t religion class. That’s not what parents sign up for. Sex education in our local public schools should be delivered in a scientific, non-judgmental way, by qualified professionals, not outsourced to an American-based pro-life lobby group.

Emily and Kathy Dawson have inspired an important public debate about the nature of our public schools. They deserve our thanks for their courage in speaking out.

This left-wing moralizing BS is a part of the news story. It’s not an editorial, it’s in the national news section. The priests of progressivism aren’t even trying to hide that the news is simply propaganda any more.

The gloves are coming off, they’re coming into the open, and they won’t stop until they’ve devoured your children’s souls and destroyed whatever is left of the family.

Drugged and Indoctrinated

I’ve written before that it’s all related. Little of what I write is a thought unto itself, which is why I try to consistently link back to my previous thoughts throughout my many blog posts.

I came across an article illustrating how its all related. Here is one Belinda Luscombe arguing why she needs to drug her kids even if ADHD doesn’t exist.

At this point, it sounds insane enough, but that is literally the title of the article: “It Doesn’t Matter if ADHD Doesn’t Exist, My Son Still Needs Drugs”

The article starts sane enough, she doesn’t want to drug her kid and Dr. Saul is arguing ADHD does not exist. Her son comes from a “bookish home” and had tutors, but is dyslexic. The son gets in trouble at school and has trouble reading and writing and the school tries to convince the parents to drug the son, but the parents resist. Not untypical.

But then you begin to see the pathological insanity of the system, but you have to look close.

One interesting wrinkle is here:

We may have stood our ground forever, except for the aforementioned “charming” part. Turns out our son was something of a pied piper. If he decided to wander off task, he took half the class with him. The nice folks at the nice school pointed out it wasn’t very fair to the other parents.

The kid is a natural born leader. The charismatic-type who people will naturally follow. Naturally, this is used against the child: He’s a natural leader, therefore it is all the more important to drug him.

But, in any case, what modern parent can approach the specter of a child who doesn’t learn with any equanimity? Even a not-very-attentive adult can see that the knowledge sector of the economy is the safest haven in downturns. The gap between those with college degrees and those without is ever widening. Not just in income, but also in life areas like successful marriages and health. The option for a kid who can’t sit and learn is not a slightly less lucrative career, it’s a much more miserable existence.

How much pathological modernism can be forced into a single paragraph? Understand the (barely) implicit script presented here:

The child must go through public schooling so he can get into college so he can get into an office job so he can survive the failing economy so he can be healthy and have a decent marriage.

First thing to note is the fear. She states “the cold hand of impending doom got us by the neck and squeezed.” The system is working quite well when it can instill actual dread in a parent when the public education system is failing him.

The second thing to note is that all these correlations she’s pointing to are probably genetic in origin. In other words, its not the education and college degree that makes someone healthy, marriageable, and successful, it is the person underneath, and given that he was such a naturally charismatic child, he probably would have done alright. So her fear is rather unfounded.

Third, look at the implicit assumption that college and an office job is the correct path. No consideration he could go into sales (which would seem an obvious path for a charismatic child), trades, or entrepreneurship. Nope college and an office job or bust.

Fourth, the implicit assumption that if a kid can’t learn in our public schools the child is wrong, not the schools.

She pretty much accepts that her child must be drilled complacency to be a good office drone or he will be a total failure at life. Pathological modernism.

Either he needs a class size of about six, with an incredibly adept and captivating teacher, or he needs a little help.

Could we get our kid through school another way? Maybe. Perhaps spend half the day in P.E. Or get him a governess instead of a classroom. Or find a teaching style that is different, somehow, more kinesthetic or less visual or uses blocks or therapy monkeys. But they’re all just maybes and he’s not our only kid and he’s not our only life challenge and his useful school years are slipping away. The meds work, are almost free of side effects and, far from being handed out willy-nilly, are a huge pain to get every month.

Notice what’s not on that list?

Home-schooling. She’d rather drug her kid than leave her job and reduce her families consumption. Either that or the thought of home-schooling enver even entered her head. I’m not sure which one would be more sad.

When I asked our now 16-year-old son if he liked taking his meds, he said “Sure. They help me concentrate.” And when I followed up with, “Would you rather be able to concentrate without them?” he gave me one of those specially-reserved-for-moronic-parents-looks and replied, nice and slow, so I’d get it. “Wouldn’t anybody?”

At least he’s happy.

She did get one thing right though: “But if we want to eradicate a chemical solution to what might be a behavioral disorder, we’ve got a whole economy and education system to reorganize.

It seems there might be something needing changing with a system that requires drugging 14% of our boys to work. I am shocked by this.

Of course, she then states “While you guys get on that, I’ve got to get my kid through school.

How cauterized does someone’s soul have to be to be to look to your kid, know the system is destroying him enough that he needs drugs to simply cope, and then say, meh, I’d rather drug him than change it or remove him from it?

****

So, in one article about a dozen paragraphs long we have: public education, ADHD and medical over-prescription, the tuition bubble, white collar uber alles, the declining economy, nontraditional sex roles, failing marriage, consumerism, and the economic fracturing of our society. All are linked together to force one young boy to drug himself, and like it, so he can continue the consumerist rat race in the future. It’s all related.

Repost: Tuition Bubble

Don’t have a new post for you today, so here’s a repost from the early days.

Here’s the New York Times running only a bit behind in reporting on the tuition bubble. I thought this would be a decent time to weigh in on the issue.

the average debt in 2011 was $23,300, with 10 percent owing more than $54,000 and 3 percent more than $100,000

To be honest, this is not that bad. $23k is a lot, but livable, even 54k is not insurmountable, but for the 3%, $100k is a serious commitment. In some areas equivalent to a mortgage on a starter home.

The problem though, is that these are ok only if there is employment for those taking the loans. The NYT doesn’t cover this in this article, but the real problem is half of these people graduating are not going to have jobs or will be underemployed.

$23k in debt is doable if you make $40k a year, even $120k ($900/month according to the article) is doable if you make $60k a year coming out of university and live frugally for a few years.

But, if you are unemployed or working part-time as a barrista, there is no way to keep payments up on much more than a few thousand dollars worth of debt and still be able to advance in life.

****

The NYT misses that the tuition bubble is not a bubble because tuition costs are high; an expensive degree can be an excellent investment for both the lender and borrower if it increases future earnings.

The whole article is off-base as high tuition costs are irrelevant if the economic benefits of the degree match or exceed the cost of the degree.

The tuition bubble is a bubble because a lot of these degrees are worthless.

So why are they worthless? Part of it is simply the transition to post-scarcity, even highly educated and skilled people may simply be replaced by machines. Some of it is because these degrees teach no useful skills, such as Master of Puppetry, an awesome album but a crappy degree. But there is another, even more fundamental, problem that the NYT ignores almost completely.

****

The main problem is touched upon later on in the piece, but only very obliquely:

the main job of the admissions staff, after all, is to admit students

An off-hand reference in the second half of a sentence at the bottom of a paragraph is all the NYT devotes to the  crux of the tuition bubble.

****

Huh? Isn’t admissions staff’s job to admit students?

No, the admissions staff’s job is to screen out students for whom university (or college) is not appropriate.

****

Doesn’t admissions already do this?

No. It doesn’t. 68% of high school graduates go to college.

Thank about that for a second.

The average graduate is going to college

Remember back to your high school graduation; think about your average classmate.

The guy who wasn’t particularly bright or particularly stupid.

Do you think he would benefit from spending 4 years learning political theory or reading Rousseau?

Do you think it would benefit anyone else that he “learned” this?

****

The evidence says he doesn’t.

One-third of those entering college drop-out.

They pay the expense of a couple years of college and do not even get the dubious benefits of a degree.

The college system is taking advantage of these people who shouldn’t be in college.

****

One-third of college students are dropping out, at the same time, grade inflation is running rampant.

College is becoming increasingly easy, yet still a third of students still can’t hack it.

The admissions people are failing their job. One-third of people entering university are not capable of completing even the dumbed-down modern university curriculum.

Think about how many more would not be capable of completing college if standards were similar to those 50 years ago.

****

Look at this post from Adacious Epigone on IQ by intended major from a few years ago.

Look at education, public admin, business, psychology, legal professions, health professionals, etc.

The average incoming student for all of these is only around average intelligence. About half of them are of below average intelligence.

This is why there is a tuition bubble.

****

It used to be that a college degree meant you were a cut above the rest; that you were a competent, intelligent individual.

Now all a college degree shows is that you are able to stomach a university’s bullshit for a few years and are not a complete dullard.

That’s why your degree is worthless.

It doesn’t signal you’re a superior intellect with a strong knowledge of your specialty.

All it shows is that you’re not completely incompetent and are able to parrot BS back to the BS’ers. How much is not being completely incompetent worth to an employer?

Even a high GPA doesn’t mean much. With grade inflation everybody’s GPA is fairly high, how can an employer trust that you actually earned yours?

****

As an aside, look at public admin and social services: 96.3.

Do you want to know one reason why your government doesn’t work very well? The people in public admin are being educated to run the government. Do not think that these are not going to be the front-line clerks at the DMV, or even their supervisors; these are actually the people who are going to university to learn how to create public policy. They are the ones who will be creating government policy and regulations that will control your life.

Most of them are of  below average intelligence.

Think about that for a minute. Please don’t weep.

Of course, the average business major is not much better, barely scraping by at 101. 2.

And we wonder why the US economy is stagnating?

Teachers are at 99.3. Half of all teachers are of below average intelligence. Here’s where you can start weeping for the future.

Your kid is likely being taught by someone of average or below average intelligence.

If you’re reading a post about the economics of post-secondary education on a blog for leisure (like say, this post you’re reading right now), it’s highly likely the large majority of these teachers, bureaucrats, and businessmen running things and teaching your children are much more stupid than you.

Aren’t you feeling comforted?

****

Thankfully the drop-out rate is so high. I’d hate to think what the school system and government would be like if a third of these sup-par students didn’t fail to finish their degrees.

****

So, after all that, you’re probably understanding why the tuition bubble exists.

It exists because too many people are getting a degree.

Everybody wants to enter the road to the professional, white-collar, middle-class, which is what university is thought of as now.

But not everybody is capable of being a white-collar professional.

Of course, modern liberal dogma can’t admit that some people are just not capable of being white-collar professionals, after all, we are all equal. The Bible (or Stephen Gould, depending on your religious beliefs) and the Constitution (or your sociology professor, depending on your political beliefs)  say so.

So those in charge, those who would read the NYT, can not and will not prevent those who shouldn’t be going to college from going to college.

Instead, they’ll encourage them to go. They’ll give these marginal students huge, government-backed loans they’ll never be able to pay back. They’ll lower academic standards as far as they can go, then lower a them a bit more, destroying any academic, economic, or signalling value of your degree in the process.

Doing otherwise would expose their ideology for the lie it is and their ideology takes precedence over the good of these marginal students, not to mention the other students whose degrees are made worthless.

So, as these marginal students flood colleges, demand for college education increases, so tuition goes up.

The academic value of the degree erodes, as grade inflation and lowered academic standards become necessary to keep these people in college, and maybe (hopefully) let them graduate.

The economic values of these degrees plummets. Your degree no longer signals competence, knowledge, and intelligence to an employer; all it signals is a lack of incompetence. Why should he pay well for that? Why should he hire the marginally competent at all?

Thus a bubble. Paying more and more for less and less.

One thing though, bubbles can’t last forever. Reality always wins in the end.

Eventually, the post-secondary education system will run into reality.

****

Economists do not predict a collapse of the student loan system, which would, in essence, mean wholesale default.

NYT’s economists never fail to be amusing. I wonder if this was Krugman or Friedman, maybe both?

Those who are blinded by ideology will run full tilt into the wall of reality. They will then act surprised.

****

With more than $1 trillion in student loans outstanding in this country

$1 trillion, that’s almost 7% of GDP. If a large percentage of these loans default, this will be a major economic catastrophe. It may be possible for the US government to forgive them, but that will be a significant increase in national debt.

Students are likely stuck with this debt.

****

So what can we do?

Short answer: nothing.

Long answer: That’s a question for another post.

****

One last note:

Leaders of the for-profit industry defended themselves

I’m usually a staunch defender of the free market, but in this case, all I can say is:

Fuck them.

The for-profit college industry is a brood of blood-sucking parasites taking advantage of students who should never set foot near a college for their own benefit, and the student loans programs in a disgusting display of parasitic corporate welfare. May their whole industry rot.

Breeding and Dysgenics

Gromar is wondering how to get intelligent women to breed to avoid dysgenics.

My question: why do we need intelligent women to breed?

Most intelligent women have options (exciting careers, schooling, etc) apart from family. Because they have these options they are going to base their breeding habits on the societally-approved feminist script.

Changing the entire script will be almost impossible, as will making significant numbers of women go against the herd.

Wouldn’t it be much easier to convince intelligent men to breed many children with women of average intelligence?

Mating doesn’t have to be assort itself by intelligence. Most men would naturally prefer a pretty face and sweet disposition to intelligence anyways. Convincing them to do what they want to do naturally should be simpler.

As a side effect, if smart men start marrying and breeding with dimwits, while smart women end up aged, lonely, and barren, future smart women may clue in.

Why Traditional Sex Roles Benefit Women

I am what many call a “sexist”, and the misogynist label has been sent my way a few times before. The sexism accusations usually come when I say something anti-feminist or acknowledge an unpleasant reality (in RL they also sometimes come when I make an off-colour joke).

But I do not hate women, rather I have a generally benevolent, if cynical, attitude towards them, just as I do to society as a whole. While I don’t particularly care about most women (or most men for that matter), I do generally like to see people get the best in life rather than the worst (other than the occasional bout of schaedenfreude or natural justice for the deserving).

And that is why I’m a sexist, because I wish women the best and they have been conned. The forces of disorder have have so manipulated the dominant narrative that many women (and men) now engage in fundamentally self-destructive behaviour.

So, for the purposes of helping women, I am going to clearly lay out the long con that has been played against you by society, the forces of disorder, ideologues, and the well-meaning but unknowing. This post is going to tie a lot of what I’ve written previously together, so links will be many.

****

Dear woman, you are taught to be independent, to avoid “ruining your life” with early marriage or having children young, to go to university and have your own career, and to avoid home-making. You are taught to be economically self-sufficient, to not be “controlled by your man”

In other words, you are taught to make your own life miserable. The jackals are trying to destroy your happiness, your sense of belonging, and your future family so they can economically exploit you. This may seem outrageous to you, but before being outraged, please finish reading, and consider the information I present. I don’t expect to change your mind now, but if I plant a seed of an idea, maybe you will germinate before you wind up miserable, exploited, alone, and beyond the point of no return.

Before I begin, know this: women nowadays are profoundly unhappy. Their happiness has been steadily declining for the last 4 decades. A quarter of all women use some sort mental health medication, and a quarter of women age 45 or older uses antidepressants. Women use antidepressents 2.5 times more than men and antidepressant use is rising rapidly. Nearly a quarter of women will get a depressive illness in their lifetime.

Women, particularly older women, are literally drugging themselves to escape the horrors of their life.

If you’re young, the choices you make now will determine if you’re part of that 1 in 4 women who needs drugs in middle age simply to get through the day.

So listen to me, and it may help you may avoid this.

****

Now, like most women, you probably want to get married and have children, if not right now, then at some point in the future. I know there are a few outlier women who never want to get married and never want to have children. If you are one of those women, ignore this, none of this will matter to you at all. But if you’re not one of these women, here is a warning for you. This is the trap that has been set for you all your life.

We will start with university. University, at least the liberal arts program you are probably considering, has turned into little more than a resource extracting scam. If you go to college, there is a one-third chance you will drop out with nothing to show for it. If you do graduate you will owe $23k in debt or so (on average), which may not seem like much, but if you are in the one-half of college graduates who are under- or unemployed (ie. you won’t be using your degree), it will hurt. One-half of young people have a job (or no job) that doesn’t require their degree. Choose your degree wisely; avoid liberal arts programs.

As for going to college to become a better person, there is a high chance you will learn almost nothing.

College is a trap to suck money from you. There is only a 1 in 3 chance you will get a degree and a job that requires your degree. You will be stuck with thousands of dollars of student debt either way.

If you find a job, you will be unhappy, maybe not now but eventually. 70% of people are disengaged from their jobs, 40% of people actively dislike their jobs. 67% of mothers wish they didn’t have to work full-time; among married mothers this increases to 77%. The profile of an unhappy worker is a single, 42-year-old professional woman.

Anecdotal accounts of women leaving the workplace to spend time with your children, or wishing they could and being unable to, are legion. 43% of women leave their jobs when they have children. Leaving your child at child care is often painful for many women. Feeling guilty or missing your children while at work is common (don’t worry you’ll adjust, it won’t always be that bad). 2/3′s of parents regret spending too much time at work instead of with their children. Most working women have difficulties with work-life balance.

To many women working is a hindrance to happiness and family life, but surely the extra money is good for the children?

But there is little extra money.

Taxes will take a good 30% of your income. If you’re married, daycare will take about 10% of your household income, which means it will take up about 20% of what you earn (assuming you and your husband earn the same; if he earns more, it will take up a larger share of your earnings). If you’re a single mother it will take up 30-40% of your income.

So half of what you will earn is accounted before you even earn it.

If you’re like most people (which you are), you’ll spend part of that income on a larger home. In fact, 30% of your “extra” income will go to a bigger house (which you’ll barely see, working full-time).

So, for busting your hump, about 20% (probably less) of what you earn will actually go to disposable income or improving your quality of life. That’s not the extra expenses of working: transportation, work clothes, lunches, coffee, etc. That $20 you earn will is more like $4 in the end.

But maybe missing your children and having only $4/hour in disposable income will be worth it because you will be doing exciting things at work?

Don’t count on it. Here’s a chart of the most common jobs women work:

All these jobs, with the exception of accountants and, possibly, managers (depending on what type of manager), can be divided into 6 categories: secretarial, food services, retail, nursing/personal care, housekeeping, and child-raising.

What do you notice about these six categories? With the exception of retail work, they are all things a housewife would be doing anyway.

So, instead of taking care of your family’s schedule, you will take care of your boss’s. Instead of feeding your family, you will feed other families. Instead of caring for your children and your parents, you’ll care of other people’s parents and children. Instead of cleaning your own house, you’ll clean someone else’s. Instead of raising your own child, you’ll raise someone else’s. Or you may be working in retail, which everyone hates.

It is highly likely that at your job you will be doing exactly what you would have done staying home, except you’ll be serving strangers rather than the husband and children you love.

So, in all likelihood you will be working a job you don’t care about or even actively hate, wishing you could work less. You will be missing your children as they are raised by other people so that you can care for other people’s families, all so that you can make a couple bucks an hour in disposable income to spend on consumerist crap and pills to make the depression go away. In addition, you will go into large amounts of debt for this privilege.

Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear woman?

Does that sound like the good life to you?

****

It probably doesn’t. So, what can you do about it?

First, you have to get a husband. If you do not have a husband you will be forced to work that miserable job or starve (or go on welfare). Remember above, single mothers spend 30-40% of their income on child care. Add on 30% of your income for housing and 30% for taxes, and you will have only 10% of income left for everything else (although, your tax burden will likely be lower than average and government handouts will stretch that 10% a bit further). Even so, you will not have the option to avoid working like a dog at a job you hate.

You’re best chance to get a husband is now. The younger you are, the larger your pool of men to choose from and the more willing they will be to sacrifice to get and keep you. Read this post from OKCupid and truly understand that graph. After age 26 your choices in the marriage pool will start to decline rapidly. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to be stuck with an undesirable man and the less likely you will be to find a man who wants you to stay home with your children.

Marry young.

Second, if you want children you have to be able to have children. Study this graph carefully:

If you wait until your 30s you have about a 1/10 chance of being infertile and it rises rapidly after that. I will repeat: if you do not start having children in your 20s there is a 8-15% chance you will never have children. If you wait until your 40s to have children you are as likely to be infertile as you are to conceive.

If you want children, especially if you want more than one, and you don’t want to run the risk of never having children, make sure to start in your 20s. This means marrying in your early-mid 20s.

Marry young.

(As alternative to marrying young, you could sleep around and party, but there’s a strong chance you’ll regret it anyways and there’s always the chance you’ll wait too long and end up miserable and lonely.)

Third is keeping your husband. If you lose your husband, you will lose your chance to stay at home, you will be forced into working, not to mention the unhappiness, poverty, and damage to children that usually accompanies divorce. I have previously analyzed which factors in a woman lead to divorce. I will share them here as things to avoid.

To keep a husband: don’t have sexual partners before marriage, wait until your 20s to marry (but after age 20 the effects of age are minimal), don’t get pregnant until you and your partner are married, get a degree (although, this is probably just a proxy for being intelligent and diligent enough to get a degree), be devout if you are religious, and make less than your future husband.

So, if you want to raise a family and avoid the trap of working a job you dislike, while serving other peoples families and missing your own family, all for almost no actual benefit, marry young, marry a man who wants traditional sex roles, don’t have premarital sex, and go to church.

Make the right choices now, so you don’t have to pop Zoloft throughout your later years out of regret for making the wrong choices.

You, along with many other men and women, have been swindled. Don’t let yourself be swindled further. Don’t engage in feminist self-annihilation.

If the information and advice I have presented here have caused you to consider marrying early, I have a little bit of advice here on how to find and/or make a good husband.

****

This one’s been sitting half done for months now. In celebration of Traditional Sex Roles Week, I’ve decided to finish it. Women, it’s in your own interest to get #BackToTheKitchen.

Self-Esteem is for Losers

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:18, ESV)

The Bible warns against pride numerous times, but I think a better word would be hubris.

The problem with the word pride is that it holds different meanings, all of which are used interchangeably.

a :  inordinate self-esteem :  conceit
b :  a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
c :  delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship

The biblical injunctions against pride concern themselves with the first meaning; a belief that one is higher than one truly is.

Pride is the original sin and the sin from which all sins flow.

Lucifer, the morning star, thought himself above God and tried to ascend to His throne. His fatal sin was hubris.

Eve’s original sin was pride:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

She wanted to become as God; she thought herself greater than she was. For that she was forever cursed.

All sin is man thinking his own reason and his own ways are superior to the reason and ways of God. But as God pointedly asked Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

Man, in his pride, thinks himself wise, but his wisdom is foolishness. He elevates himself in his own mind above His creator and suffers for it.

In Proverbs humility is linked with fear of the Lord:

The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom,
and humility comes before honor. (Proverbs 15:33, ESV)

The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life. (Proverbs 22:4, ESV)

It is clear, humility is knowing your right place before God and before other man.

A humble man may still have pride of the second and third definitions: he may respect himself because he is made in God’s image which is reflected through him, imparting upon him value; he may take joy in doing acts of right, knowing these acts come from God’s providence.

The pride of a humble man and the pride of the hubristic man are as far as the east is from the west.

A man of hubris thinks himself higher than he is, a humble man knows himself for who he is.

A humble man has true confidence, for he knows who he is and accepts his lot. The hubristic man’s confidence is but a mirage.

****

Respect is something that is earned. It is primarily a masculine concept; where a man earns the respect of his warband (or a functional equivalent) by contributing to the warband. A man who is not worthy of respect, who does not contribute leads his warband to its death.

Respect is esteem given to you by others in recognition of your deeds.

A humble man’s contributions usually relate to or exceed how he thinks of himself, so he is oft respected in proportion to or exceeding his beliefs of his own station.A man of hubris is rarely respected according to his belief, as his empty thoughts of pride far exceed his contributions.

A man should strive to be both humble and respected.

Know your place, accept your place, contribute the best you can, and let other raise your esteem.

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 14:8-11, ESV)

This is the masculine form of respect.

Respect is very different when framed in a feminine mode of thinking. This mode of thinking is devoted to a close-knit family where everyone is valued because immediate survival is not on the line and division in the home can rend the clan’s survival as surely as a rival warband.

Man is to be respected not for what he contributes, but simply for existing.

Treat everyone with respect.

This, as with most feminine modes of social interaction, works well on the small scale, in a tight knit family group apart from the immediate demands of survival. When applied to the immediate kin group, it leads to harmonious family relations working together for survival and against foreign threats.

It does not work in an extended group or when the lion is skulking in the bush. When applied to a survival situation, respecting the incompetent leads to a swift death.

When the feminine mode is applied on a greater scale, respect becomes meaningless. If everyone is respected, then what good is respect? If you give the same esteem to the criminal as to the saint, how is your esteem of any value? If one is respected regardless, why should one contribute?

In greater society, respect must be of the masculine form; it has to be earned for it to be of any meaning or value, otherwise it is naught but dust.

Not everybody deserves respect.

****

We come now to self-esteem.

Self-esteem is always based within the feminine mode of respect. “Everyone should have good self-esteem“, regardless of their actual contributions or abilities.

One should esteem oneself regardless of whether one is worthy of said esteem.

To this end, the dullard is praised as highly for butchering the English language as the wordsmith is praised for his beautiful sonnet evoking ancient imagery.

Under the cruel tyranny of self-esteem, man’s hubris is raised far beyond any reasonable estimation of his proper place. His elders, those wolves in sheep’s clothing, lead him into the violent trap of the sin of pride.

To add to the cruelty, he is incapable of developing proper self-respect or respect from others. His hubris overtakes him, but he knows in his heart of hearts, that something is not right. He knows in his heart of hearts he does not actually measure up to his own hubris, for reality continually and brutally contradicts the words of those sweetly poisoned tongues. His true confidence is eaten away nibble by tiny nibble, while he invests ever more heavily in his false hubris to keep from emotionally drowning.

Eventually, he will fall and self-immolate.

But, to twist the knife ever deeper, despite his inflated opinion of himself and the false praise of his elders, he will never earn real, masculine respect. His words will always exceed his deeds for how could he learn to contribute when he is taught to value his failures as highly as his contributions?

He will never earn the true respect of others. Because his self-esteem to be based solely on honey-dipped falsehoods, rather than the confidence of real accomplishment, this will eat away at his emotional and spiritual core. He will need their praise and their false respect, for his self-esteem depends on it, yet he will never have true respect and genuine praise for he is incapable of earning it.

He will never know and accept his proper place; he will never have the true confidence of the humble man. He will always think himself better than he is and pine for the respect and rewards he believes himself entitled to, but because he is not as high as he thinks he is and he has not earned them they will forever elude him. This will cause bitterness, as he questions his whole self, never knowing why he is not in “his proper place”, yet never being able to truly find his proper place.

Thus we end, self-esteem is for losers.

It is a false confidence that robs one of true confidence and replaces it with a sinful mirage. It erodes your emotional and spiritual core and makes you dependent on others for your confidence.

Winners gain confidence by trying until they succeed. They put in the effort, improve themselves, and eventually, their pride comes from knowing they have earned their place and being confident because of it.

Losers have no success upon which to build their confidence. They do not know their place, or they know and shudder at their worthlessness, so they demand others’ praise to inflate their sinful hubris.

****

I say this to you:

If you have any love of a young one, fight his self-esteem, crush it ruthlessly. Praise his true successes, but never let your praise be inordinate. Do not praise his failures; when he fails encourage him to try harder, to practice more, to push himself beyond what he currently is, so he can truly succeed.

Build in him true confidence, so he can climb to the mountain-top, look down, and know his place.

Only those who hate their children develop their self-esteem.

****

Also know this, if someone demands your unearned respect or curses you for lowering their self-esteem, they are a loser. They are drowning themselves in the sin of pride and demanding you help them do so. They need your accolades to prop up their ego because they lack the true confidence that comes with success, with genuine contribution, with real respect.

By demanding unearned respect they are only showing they are not worthy of it.

Demanding More

There’s been a little bit of debate on the infantalization of men within the alt-right/manosphere, so I decided to weigh in. (I have a companion piece to this post here, read it to give more context to this post).

The Social Pathologist wrote:

The manosphere rightly criticizes women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticize the increasing infantisation of men.  When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognize is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness  but criticizes women for wanting its feminine equivalent. Mote, beam, eye. It’s all a bit of hypocrisy.

There are two problems with his argument here.

The first problem is the difference between the manosphere and modern feminism. The manosphere is actively trying to improve men; they are encouraging men to become better, more masculine players, or better, more masculine patriarchs. They are actively trying to move away from being the nice computer nerds and become better at being a man. (Whether that’s better or not for women is debatable).

(The other section of the manosphere, the MGTOW, may not advocate self-improvement as much, but they are not hypocritical because they are also no longer calling for women to improve. They’ve simply decided to take their ball and go home and have given the reasons why).

Modern feminism on the other hand is actively trying to make women less feminine. They are actively encouraging women to be fat (fat acceptance), to be “outspoken” (read: bitchy), and to discard their traditional societal roles. They are actively trying to make woman worse. They are encouraging women to become bitchy (not nice) fat chicks.

The second problem with his argument is the underlying social context. The problem the manosphere has is not, so much, about women preferring alpha men to beta men, it is that women and society lie about it.

Men are honest about what they want. Most men (lying manginas and fat fetishists, aside) are honest about their preferences and are quite willing to say “I want a thin, feminine women with a nice chest.” Women are told and know exactly what men want. Some women lie to themselves that fat is beautiful (Rubens like fat women… dur), but even then their complaints are that men do not appreciate their “beauty”, not that men are actually lying to them about it.

On the other hand, women lie (or genuinely don’t know) about their preferences. If you ask women (be they your mother, sisters, female friends, whomever) what women want, the answer will usually be something similar to “a nice, loving man in touch with his emotion who wants to settle down and share the housework equally.” The problem being something any nice young man looking to settle down realizes quite quickly: women’s actual choices in men are something else entirely.

If women just came out and said that they were attracted to aloof, dominant, irresponsible, alpha bad boys, there would be no problem. (There would also be no problem if women found betas attractive like they said). Men would have the honest truth and could live their life accordingly. The problem is that men are sucking up the lies about women’s desire for a loving beta, are having these lies dashed around them, and, when they wonder why, are lied to even more. It is not the preferences that are the problem, it is the lies surrounding the preferences that are the problem.

The difference is that men are honest about what attracts them, but women are dishonest (or mistaken) about what they are attracted to. These are what separate the “why are there no good men?” feminists and the manosphere.

In a later post he wrote:

The manosphere has quite rightly denounced the corruption of women by feminism but what it has been unable see is the failure in modern masculinity. Roosh and Roissy may get lots of lays but they would have hardly been though of examples of masculinity either in Roman, Greek or Victorian times. Hedonism was always the “soft” option of manhood. And the reality today is that many men are soft. Not so much physically as in character. Women are far “harder” today and more self disciplined. Making women “softer” may restore some of their femininity but it no way guarantees the masculinity of men.  Taking away a woman’s rights does not give a man alpha qualities.

Simon Grey responded:

And so, while I agree with the MRA crowd that most women would make for terrible wives, I also agree with Slumlord that most men make for terrible husbands.  Quite simply, most people in this world are self-absorbed cowards, too afraid to live up to their potential, and too weak to suppress their self-destructive tendencies.  No wonder their marriages and relationships turn cancerous.

I agree, most young men today would make terrible husbands, but they both stop there. They do not ask why, and that is the important question.

Why are most young men today living as “Peter Pan” manboys?

(We could ask the same about why most women would make poor wives, but the manosphere has covered that fairly extensively already; the answer boils down to feminism).

Dalrock has already has partially answered the question and has hit a key point:

While we might argue about the speed and magnitude of men’s reaction to such a shift, as well as the specific mechanism we might observe (marriage strike vs weakened signal, etc), I don’t see how one could argue that an overall decline in men’s eagerness to work hard in preparation to lead families is surprising.

We wanted non threatening men, and now we have them.

But I don’t think he spells it out clearly enough, so I’m going to.

The reason there are so many losers, manboys, men without chests, or whatever you wish to call them, comes down to one, solitary word. This word is probably the single most important word when it comes to any social pheonomenum. This word is:

Incentives

This is the centre-piece of economics. This is the single most explanatory concept in all the social sciences. Incentives.

People respond to incentives. If there are positive incentives for a behaviour, there will be more of that behaviour. If there are negative incentives for a behaviour, there will be less of that behaviour.

No matter how much cajoling is done, no matter how much people are shamed, no matter how many laws are written, the incentive structure of society (of which cajoling, shaming, and laws are all a part) will override them all.

****

So, what are the incentives of the young man today?

I was originally going to write a short narrative, but it turned long, too long for this post. You can read it here, it provides more context.

The young man today is put in 13 years of public school and university, where people are judged primarily by their ability tosit still and parrot what their teachers say. Where masculine behaviours, such as risk-taking, dominance, and rough-housing are discouraged, banned, and punished. Sometimes these behaviours even result in a regime of drugging. The entire system is as structured as a tightly run concentration camp.

On the other hand, young males are taught that their natural desires are destructive and to be controlled, but are not taught the discipline necessary to control them. They are taught to get in touch with their emotions, except those school administration think are dangerous. They are taught self-esteem, where no matter what they accomplish (or don’t accomplish) they are special and deserving. They are not taught self-control, they are taught hedonism.

This produces a horrible dichotomy of a lack of freedom and a lack of discipline. The entire school system is geared towards teaching young boys subservience and dependence (beta traits) and to destroy their in-born initiative, risk-taking, and ambition (alpha traits).

Right from the get go, authorities teach young boys that traditional masculine behaviours are punished, while weakness and beta traits (not always the same) are rewarded.

In university, the incentive structure is much the same. Obey and parrot and be rewarded.

Men are taught, while young, that the authorities will reward for being weak and punish for being strong. They are also taught an entitlement mentality.

This is the incentive structure the primary authorities in their life (children spend as much or more time being instructed by the school system than their parents) ingrain in them from a young age.

****

On the other hand, the social system of both school and university naturally coalesces into an opposing dynamic. Children are socialized through other children than through other adults. They pick up natural, feral attitudes towards interpersonal relations rather than a more mature civilized attitude to social relations.

In this social system, the alphas are socially and sexually rewarded, while the more awkward betas are not. Young men learn that sex, social status, and relationships can be obtained without work. In fact, men are taught that the irresponsible “cool” kids are more likely to be socially and sexually rewarded than the more responsible “nerds”.

In other words, they know they can satiate their primary genetic drive without having to contribute to society, as long as they act “like jerks.”

Young men are taught that irresponsibility pays now.

The only threat we have against this the long term: responsibility pays in the long run.

This worked until the last decade or so, until long-term incentives began to collapse.

****

What are the long-term incentives for your young adult male, so he is responsible?

A good-paying, worthwhile job, a house, a loving wife, social status, and a family.

The good-paying job is dying in the current economic corruption. 50% of our young people are either under- or unemployed. Their college degrees are worthless. They are shackled with near unmanageable student debt. Self-employment is a no-go. Government regulations strangle most industries and are especially painful to small businesses. (Not to mention, the initiative and ambition necessary for self-employment were beat out of him by the school system). Those who do get jobs are usually suffering in useless government busywork or brutally impersonal corporate work.

Simply put, there are no longer any guarantees that hard-work and responsibility will lead to a worthwhile job. But even if he eventually gets a job, he is punished by having half his income is taken by the state and given to the irresponsible.

He can still get a home, but not without the job. That, and the young man doesn’t want a home for himself; he wants it so he can raise a family. This incentive is more an ancillary option to the other incentives.

The primary incentive is a wife and family, but that incentive is becoming meaningless.

The average age of marriage for is 28 (in Canada it’s 31). Think about that. Your average man will not find a wife until a full decade after he graduates from high school and about 15 years after he hits puberty.

During this 15 years of either loneliness and sexual frustration for betas or, for the alphas, hedonism and sexual license, what lessons are being learned by men?

Irresponsibility.

Men are learning to get used to irresponsibility. How the hell can you expect most men to be prepared for the responsibility of a wife and family after he has had a full decade of getting acquainted to irresponsibility?

You can’t.

But lets say he’s prepared for marriage. It’s highly unlikely his wife is a virgin: his dating pool probably has more single mothers than virgins. She’s not going to bond to him.

There’s a 50% chance that he will lose his family. When he loses his family, there is a good chance he will be subjected to alimony slavery and have his family kidnapped from him. I’m not going into detail here, because other’s have wrote much more comprehensive articles on the risks of marriage, but marriage is becoming and increasingly bad option.

Social status? Hahaha… Being a responsible person no longer create social status. “Office drones” are looked down upon. The rich and successful are castigated and punished. Everybody is equal now. There is no more of the base respect and social status given to a man who quietly works hard to provide for his family.

So, where are his incentives to be responsible?

When having a family is a decade away and is likely to be punished with divorce, alimony theft, and having his children ripped from him? When hard work and an education no longer means a job, let alone a meaningful one? When he’s grown accustomed to the freedom of singledom? When he is punished for career success? When the lazy and irresponsible are rewarded with his hard-earned income?

****

Overall, the entire incentive structure of society is biased towards men being irresponsible.

If a man is irresponsible, he gets to play video games now. He gets sex now. He gets to hang out with his friends now.

If a man is responsible, there is no immediate gain. When there were long-term incentives, this was fine, but the long term incentives are breaking down.

Why should men act responsibly, when the incentives are towards irresponsibility?

****

Pathologist illustrated his point about weak men with a story about a “responsible” young women with an irresponsible young man for a boyfriend.

Many in the manosphere would view this woman as a demanding bitch. I don’t. She would be a good modern fit for Proverbs 31:10-31. She has independently, on a low income, saved money and bought herself a house, put tenants in it and has a long term plan for the future. She is keeping down a job and has been able to organise her own affairs. She wants a stable future and does not want to live in poverty. By the way, I’d estimate her BMI at about 22. Such a woman is percieved as a threat to Western Civilisation by the manosphere. Facepalm.

She is a threat to Western Civilization, not because she is a “demanding bitch”, but because she is not demanding enough. If she was a Proverbs 31 women she would not be shacking up with an irresponsible man. She would have demanded marriage to a man “known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.” ie. She would have married a responsible and respected man. Instead, she is giving herself to an worthless man without any demands of responsibility from him.

She is the one creating perverse incentives.

By herself, her actions don’t matter. But if you multiply her by a few million women, all demanding nothing out of the men they bed, then you have a threat to civilization.

She made her choice to date a loser, to be irresponsible, and to reward irresponsible behaviour. She now has to face the consequences of her choices. Society now has to face the consequences of her actions.

When love is free, most men won’t pay for it.

If men aren’t paying, civilization is threatened.

****

The manosphere is right to demand more from women, but there is also a corollary. Women need to demand more from men.

We need a society that demands more from everybody and rewards those, and only those, who meet those demands. People will only rise to the level that societal incentives reward.

Everything in life comes down to incentives. Right now, the incentive structure for men is built so that irresponsibility is rewarded, while responsibility is punished. When the incentives for men are structured this way you will get irresponsible men.

If women, conservatives, and the Social Pathologist want responsible men, they should help restructure society so that the incentives of society, particularly, in this case, those related to sex and relationships, reward responsible men, and punish irresponsible men.