Lightning Round – 2012/10/24

Are you masculine enough to deserve the feminine woman you demand?
Related: Feminism can not exist where masculine men do.

The Captain gives entitled whiners a smack down.

Oneitis causes death.

A good wife is a home maker; a bad wife is a home breaker.

A women declaring oneself a born-again virgin would be a greater deal-breaker than her not being a virgin. If a woman has slutted it up, she should at least be honest about it instead of living in self-delusion.

Marriage: What’s in it for men?

Athol has a post on the effect of vasectomies on sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a negative effect, as semen gives benefits to women and a  vasectomy may block some of those.

This seems fake to me. I’ve never seen a women be that rationally calculating before.

An interesting hypothesis: Feminists cry because they are brain-damaged.

I am in favour of chivalry as a concept, but I believe it should be reserved for ladies and not wasted on ungrateful feminists, sluts, and egalitarians.

Sometimes, Roissy can really turn a phrase.

The etymology of the word slut. It is exclusively female.
Related: SSM has a revelation.

The Captain opines on black men and the manosphere.

A good look into the insane, rambling mind of a frivolous divorcee, hypocritical feminist, and self-indulgent narcissist. Fascinating reading of a hamster going full-tilt if you can stomach the pure, unfiltered mind vomit of a horrible example of womanhood.

The church-going travails of a traditionalist.

Teaching teens game. I’m interested in how this will go.

Proof of the attractiveness of the dark triad.

Seems Frost has jumped on the Koanic Tech/Edenism band wagon. Not sure if I buy it, but it’s interesting. I plan to learn more.
Related: Forney has created an Edenic link aggregator.

Frost is picking himself up after arriving back to where he began.

Let the boomers starve.
Related: Screw the boomers, they fucked us over hard.

The “war on women” is a dangerous myth.
Related: Women are beginning to realize the damage feminism has done.

Whited Sepulchre prescribes some truth pills on Obamacare.
Related: Death panels? What death panels?
Related: Yeah… Our health care is not better than the Yanks’.

Vox has an interesting post on the lawsuit against the Italian geologists. Not sure what to think, but he makes a persuasive argument.

Wright on why libertarian purists should vote for Romney.
Related: Romney kills a speech and rips liberal a new one.
Related: Why are there so few female libertarians? I think it’s simply because women are herd creatures, while libertarianism is an individualist philosophy.

If Romney’s stable family and home threaten your values, there’s probably something wrong with you.

Tim 2012. I’d vote for him.

The squeeze on the middle class.

The people you meet on public transit. Hehe.

If you’re giving child support and poor, it’s about to get worse.

Some humour from /b/. Hehe.

The unintended side effects of divorce on ballroom dancing.

Steyn on the feds controlling children’s lunches.

I might have linked this before, but it bear repeating. Paul Krugman is a dishonest hack.
Related: An excellent chart comparing the Reagan recovery and the Obama “recovery”.

Peak oil is the BS of dishonest hacks.

The IRS sells your private information for only $35.

The implications of being able to genetically identify potential future criminals.

12-year-old shoots home intruder. Props to her.

(H/T: SDA, Instapundit, Maggie’s Farm, SSM, Alpha Game)

The Bookshelf: Red Pill Reformation

On the Bookshelf today is Red Pill Reformation by MTE. He goes by Rock Throwing Peasant in the comment sections around the manosphere, and his blog is on my blog roll. When I heard he wrote a book on the Christian Red Pill, I was intrigued. I’ve been busy lately, so it’s taken me a while to get around to reading it, but here’s my review (finally).

First, the book is fairly short, about 50 pages, with an additional 30 pages of an action plan, but it’s fairly priced at only $2.99. It’s good value for money.

As for the writing style, it’s very straightforward, basic, and to the point. Occasionally, I find the writing  can sometimes be “choppy”, but overall it reads easy, almost conversationally. He communicates his ideas effectively and functionally.

After a short introduction, the book starts with the typical beta narrative men are sold and contrasts that with the red pill of evolutionary psychology. He outlays the standard analysis of both quite well. There’s nothing new, but its a solid introduction.

I did have one little quibble; he defines hypergamy thus:

It is the innate desire of a woman to pair bond (not necessarily a relationship) with a man of higher value. In layman’s terms, think of the term, “marrying up.” Women who rate a 6 on the 1-10 scale don’t want to mate with a male 6. They want 7-10. They may marry a 5 or 6. They may have sex with a 5 or 6, but they want the 7-10. When their basic needs are met, there is little else on earth that will stop them from spending waking hours thinking about that bartender.

I don’t think he quite gets it right. Wanting to marry a higher quality mate is not exclusive to women’ men want to marry a women above their “number” as well. Hypergamy is a women’s desire for a man who more socially dominant (whether by money, fame, occupation, education, or whatever), while men desire women based primarily on looks and a pleasant personality. It’s not that women necessarily want a man with a “higher number” (although they do) that makes them hypergamous, it’s what they base the number on that does. This is a minor point, he does get the basics of hypergamy right, I just think it was a bit oversimplified and he should have explicated it a bit. The rest is of these section is good, if fairly basic for manosphere writing.

He follows with an excellent section on feminism. It provides an excellent overview of the negative effects of feminism. There’s some stuff included here I didn’t know before. I liked it.

In the next section he lays out the basics of game. Overall, he has a good general overview of the topic. Enough information to ge the basic concept without getting bogged down in detail.

I do have one criticism, the author misuses the term preselection. He writes, “Pre-selection is a female’s natural tendency to subconsciously disqualify 90% of all men she meets from any possibility of romance (carnal or other).” While women will disqualify most men, pre-selection is generally used to refer to a woman selecting a man (or not) based on how she perceives other women value that man.

At the end of the game section, he discusses the morality of game for seduction and how he rejects its use because it removes the moral component of human interaction.

He follows with two good sections on Churchianity and Marriage 2.0. These were solid introductions to the concepts.

He follows in a few sections reconciling manosphere concepts to being a Christian husband, resulting in a patriarch. In essence, he comes to the conclusion that a man is ordained by God to actively and courageously lead his home towards a goal. A good conclusion.

These first sections were the lead-up to the last 3 section which make up the bulk of the piece. These 3 sections go into detail about how to be a patriarch.

The first called “A Family of Disciples” is a practical guide to discipling your family. This will mean nothing to the non-Christians, but if you’re a Christian patriarch, it’s good advice.

The second of these sections is about developing the characteristics of “Integrity, Rational thought, Self-Awareness, Charisma, Confidence, Effective communication, Assertiveness, Optimism, and Physical Appearance.” These characteristics are developed from where game principles and Christian virtue meet. He lays out clearly why you should develop them and gives some advice on how to develop them. It is very well done and the advice is good.

The final section is called “Game and Love” and is more theoretical in nature. Here the author discusses how principles of game and of Christ interact. What I think is the essential point of the section: “God knows the heart of women and has told and shown men how to lead them. Game proponents observed God’s Way and penned the term, “game,” to give a pagan version of it.”

Rock Throwing Peasant ends the book with a 30-Day Action Plan. Everything on this list is good stuff to do/practice, although, a good portion of it is very much focused on Christians and/or the married, so if you aren’t either, fair amounts of the plan may not apply to you. For the married or to-be-married Christian, it is excellent stuf, but it is a lot of stuff. Some of it is fairly easy to do in a single day, but much of it is long-term habits to work on. If you tried to start all of it on it’s recommended day in the month, you’d likely experience willpower depletion. I would recommend practicing everything in the plan, it’s a good plan, but maybe, slow it down a bit. For the developing the larger, long-term habits, implement a new one each week or two.

Overall, the book got better as I read more. It started out a little shaky and there were some theoretical points on game that I think were mistaken. This made me skeptical at first, but the deeper into it I got, the more impressed I became. This is a great book.

It is very much geared towards the married or to-be-married Christian, so its use for those not in this category may be limited. For the red pill aware Christian, this book does a good job of sorting out the relationship between the red pill and Christian virtue, and how to develop yourself into a patriarch.

Recommendation:

This is a great book for its purpose.

If you are a married Christian or a Christian looking to be married: Buy this book. It’s an excellent guide to becoming a patriarch and exerting your leadership in your family.

If you are non-Christian and are married or looking to be married, this book is solid, and I’d recommend it, but it is based heavily upon Christian thought. You would benefit, but not as fully as a Christian would. You’d likely get more from reading Athol’s Primer; read that first, then, if you want more, pick this up. It’s definitely worth its price.

If you are not a Christian and do not plan to get married, I don’t see this book helping you very much. It’s probably not something to put high on your priority list. If you have a theoretical interest in the topic or want to develop yourself through the action plan (although,30 Days of Discipline may be more to your liking), for the price and length, its not too much of an investment if it doesn’t pan out.

If you know a young Christian male you want to introduce the red pill to, Red Pill Reformation would be an excellent place to start. Despite a couple of small quibbles about his theory of game, this book will get him thinking about the red pill, without the immediate negative reaction he might have towards material oriented towards players.

A Lesson on Partisan Hackery

I was cruising Slate today, my typical source for keeping informed on current goodthink, and came across a few articles from that paragon of reasoned thought, David Weigel.

He provided an interesting lesson on what being a partisan hack for too long can do to a person’s brain.

At 2:03 pm, David  wrote about a Democratic ad that selectively quoted Romney on abortion. He said “so, yeah, that’s misleading.” He then goes on to justify it being misleading because it revealed something  he believed true about Romney.

At 9:25 am, David wrote about Republicans selectively quoting both Obama and Biden. His response, derision at gaffe-spotting and people are hyperventilating for thinking about it as it doesn’t reveal anything.

In less than five hours, he changed his opinion on selectively quoting politicians to mislead individuals from derision because its a waste of time to being justified because it reveals the truth.

Today’s lesson: Being a partisan hack can really damage your reasoning abilities.

Why Would Any Self-Respecting Male be an Ally?

Trigger Warning: Some mansplaining goin’ down here.

A couple weeks back, I read Occupy Misandry (h/t: Mojo). It’s about one guy’s experiences at the Occupy Wall Street kerfluffle. He was your typical left-wing rage against the machine type, who describes himself as a “one-time Marxist feminist”. Here’s his experience:

The progressive stack technique is a something that compels the rotationally appointed stack-keeper to move people forward (or backward) on the speaker list depending on several criteria – chiefly, whether or not you were deemed to belong to a minority group or, conversely, whether you were apprehended as being part of the dominating class. It was there and then that I was duly informed that, as a white heterosexual male, I was a member of this dominating privileged echelon and that if I wanted to address the assembly, I may have to forgo my place in the line a myriad of times, in order to let others, who have been ‘traditionally denied a voice,’ to scoot in ahead of me. Women (surprise, surprise!) were always escorted to the front of the queue because, although they were not a minority per se, they were ausländers – outliers in that political hinterland beyond the perimeter fence of the big, bad encampment of domination.

This was not the first time I had ever had my ostensible privilege stare me in the face – but this time it felt a little different: it was suddenly right the fuck up in my face. Being a one-time Marxist feminist, this perennial charge of patriarchal privilege was bitter medicine, yet one that I felt compelled to imbibe. I had been holding my nose and swallowing this tincture, ever since the mid 1980’s. It seemed a small price to pay for trying to make the world a fairer place for all. And like most medicine, you tend to ignore the rancid taste because you are led to believe it is good for you, that it is curative.

This blatant discrimination from those supposedly opposed to it, unsurprisingly angered our soon-to-be MRA. Another little incident cements this, and he becomes disillusioned with left-wing shibboleths (welcome to the club). He became an MRA.

My immediate advice to him is to dig further. The far left may be particularly repellent in their lies, but even the “centrist” and “conservative” progressivism that dominates modern society are the same pill with a lighter blue hue. The MRA still buys into the dominant progressivist paradigm.

But that’s not my point today, my point today is simply to ask, rather rhetorically, what possesses a man to sacrifice himself to become an “ally” in the first place?

****

Sidenote: In left-wing sociological terminology, majority and minority are not numerative descriptors, it doesn’t matter which group there is more of or less of. It is a descriptor of power, whichever group is the most dominant (according to left-wing ideology) is the majority. For example, even though whites have only made up 10-20% of South Africans over the last few decades, they would be the “majority” simply because whites are dominant. So women, despite being half the population, would be a “minority” in sociological newspeak.

****

First, the term ally. An ally is someone who supports the political activism of the grievance industry that purports to represent a “minority” group but is not of that minority group. (It should be noted, not every left-wing crusader agrees with the use of the term allies, while others think otherwise). Examples of allies could include a heterosexual who supports gay rights, a male who supports feminism, or a white person that supports affirmative action and “anti-racism”. John Scalzi, Tim Wise, and Hugo Schwyzer are a few allies those of the manosphere may be more familiar with (although, I do not know if they would self-describe thus). People in the manosphere would likely refer to them as manginas.

Anyway, why would any male with any amount of self-respect decide to become an ally to the grievance industries which hate and disrespect them so?

The examples of left-wing  disrespect and callousness for their allies abound. There’s a newborn MRA up there. There’s Hugo Shwyzer getting thrown under a bus, which happened after he threw the founder of the Good Men project under the bus. There are other examples, but even more convincing is the general undertone of disrespect leftists grievance groups, especially feminists, have for their allies. The amount of intense anger feminists display towards those trying to be their allies is crazy. Even the male allies get in on making demands males must follow.

Let’s say you’re sympathetic and want to learn how to be an ally or be a better one. Nope, educate yourself; no cookie for you.

****

So people don’t think I’m cherry-picking certain posts or extremists, this kind of demanding, angry, condescending is steeped throughout the grievance industry; it even forms the very basis of a lot of their language.

I didn’t just use the phrase “no cookie for you”, the cookie concept is a part of the language. It’s used to mock men who try to get on activists’ good side by buying into their frame. (Although, from my understanding, it’s become somewhat more positive on occasion.  The condescension of the concept is (or at least should be) humiliating for those who seek or receive them. Now, I think men who suck up to left-wing activists deserve mockery and humiliation, but they’re not trying to be my ally.

Other concepts major concepts among feminists also reek of condescension and humiliation of their supposed allies.

Check your privilege – When an ally starts talking from a position of “privilege”, this is used to get them to rethink their privilege. Essentially, it’s used a weapon for silencing those whose opinions don’t matter as much (ie. anyone not in the victim group).  Even some feminists think that it’s overused as a silencing tactic.

(Man)splaining – When a “privileged” person tries to explain something to a “non-privileged” person. Essentially, as “Michael Hawkins” learned in the comments here, mansplaining is whenever a man tries to debate with a feminist. Remember, a feminist knows everything, and trying to be helpful or having your own opinion is sexist. (Hint: Never help a feminist).

Gaslighting – Gaslighting was actually a respectable word used in psychology used for when sociopaths abused someone into believing unreality (see: public education). Feminists got hold of the concept and now gaslighting means anytime you point out to a women she is getting overemotional or anytime a women gets offended and you argue there’s no need to be. Remember, feminists never personalize, never get overly emotional, and never overreact. So, if you criticize a women for threatening suicide because you did not buy her a coke, you’re gaslighting.

Pretty much, all of these are used to silence, intimidate, and marginalize the “privileged” who dare interact with a feminist.

****

Of course, evil patriarchs like me don’t care and aren’t silenced. If logic, self-control, and reason are considered mansplaining and gaslighting, then I’ll cop to both. And, no, I won’t check my privilege and don’t care in the least about their cookies. (I only want cookies made out of love by someone feminine or mass-produced in a factory engineered, designed, and built by men).

Nope, those of us who think feminism is a load of crap, aren’t effected or silenced.

So who are marginalized?

Allies.

Those weak liberal suck-ups who try to get on feminists’ good side (good luck, you have a 1/360 chance). Those are the ones whose voices are silenced. Those are the ones are ostracized by those they try to please the unpleaseable.

They’re the ones who want the cookie, so they’re the ones who’ll try to earn it and will be disappointed when they realize they’re mansplaining out of their privilege and therefore, their opinion is worthless.

Some will realize this, like our newfound ally up there, but others, the manginas of the manginas, will continue to try to “check their privilege” and like good little doggies beg for their cookies.

But why?

Why would any man with even an ounce of self-respect put up this?

Why would any man accept being constantly condescended to and humiliated?

What do they get out of it?

Is it worth it?

What could possibly possess a man to prostrate himself before feminists and hand them his balls?

Lightning Round – 2012/10/17

Read this post. Ian knocks it out of the park on Happily Ever After.
Related: The boomers destroyed traditional society, now, they reap the consequences.
Related: Childless women are miserably happy.
Related: Twu Wuv and game.

Feminist realizes traditional courtship is pretty good.
Related: 5 dates; what a lucky guy.
(Dude, if you somehow come across this: RUN NOW).
Related: Said feminist was a fraud.
Related: Feminist sex is a fraud.

Manosphere news: In Mala Fide has returned as an archive. It starts well.
More News: Congrats to the Captain.

When civil society dies, people will vote for their own self-interest.

Men are trained to be more afraid of fighting than of being hurt.

Violence is ok if it’s anti-ideological. Only sick people have ideology.

“One wonders if there’s a high correlation between “Angry Radical Leftists” and “Folks Who Don’t Get Math” ?”

Educated women’s contempt for men.
Related: Another article on snark; humour for the mentally enfeebled (when used in excess).
Related: A women mistakes feminist snark for humour.

Florida gets itself race-based academic goals.
GL Piggy comments.
Elusive Wapiti comments.
Related: I agree with France on the no homework thing, but their reason is idiotic.
Related: Education is not scalable.

Men struggle in marriage; the MSM is almost catching on.
Even the NYT notices it (in Italy).

How the destruction of marriage effects the welfare state.
Related: Bread and circuses.
Related: Is it really a win if the other team forfeits?

40% of every small business dollar goes to regulations.
Related: Thank you ADA.
Related: This guy is a total bastard.

“Nagging begot the Nanny State on Steroids.”

Women spend more on health care. Am I ever surprised.

The moral case for capitalism.
Related: An economics experiment.

Oh California…

The MSM, only a few months behind the Captain. Some day they’ll catch up.

Society is of women, civilization is of men.
Related: Cliques are for high school girls, not men.

The manosphere loves women by saving them from themselves.

SMP is harsh for both men and women. You can’t always get what you want.
As this guy exemplifies.
So does this women.

A man’s virginity is worth 1/100th of a woman’s. Colour me surprised.

Confidence in self-destructive choices.

What she doesn’t see, is that women enjoying womanly things is anti-feminist.

Amanda Todd was the result of a sick society. No legislation or anti-bullying will rectify this.
Related: How our schools train narcissists.

Why some parents hate parenting.

The purpose of psychiatric medication? No riots in DC.

What happens when you screw over a generation.

Science: This is kinda cool. Wonder what Koanic would say about the Denisovans?

Slowly, but surely, the MSM is coming to accept the science.

Fat is not only unhealthy, it will lower your testosterone.

The drug war explained in a single chart.

Only an over-educated, intelligent idiot could possibly believe the deficit is too small.
Only a liberal could believe we have too little debt.
Related: Krugman is a dishonest liberal shill, just like most “Keynesians”.
Related: Keynesianism just means spending.

Some thoughts from Nassim Taleb, an intellectual I actually respect.

Thomas Sowell, another intellectual I respect, shreds Obama.

That is hilarious. How do some people function in society?

Remember, Southerners, Republicans, and conservatives are racist.

4% of Americans get a “free” cell phone from the government.

Oh, for when Britain was free. How far she has fallen.

There has been no warming since 1997.

The UN needs to go.

Walmart gets into banking. Could be a game-changer.

How libertarians and alt-righters feel about the election:

(H/T: Maggie’s Farm, Instapundit, SDA, the Captain, Save Capitalism, Mojo, Patriactionary, Dalrock, the Hunt, GLP)

The Consequences of Sluttiness

I was gonna post this in tonight’s Lightning Round, but it took too much space, so it gets its own short post.

This is what happens when a women is slutty prior to marriage. Be warned:

Q. Disconnected From Husband After Orgasm: Please help. I love my husband. He is affectionate, interesting, smart, and even does his share of the housework. The only problem is in bed. Although I usually orgasm during sex with him, instead of feeling emotional satisfaction and closeness afterward, I feel sad and disconnected. With past boyfriends, I always felt the rush of “bonding” chemicals, even when I didn’t want to. What could be going wrong now? And please, don’t bother to suggest couples counseling. My husband would be crushed if he knew.

A: Fake it. Not your orgasm, because you’re fortunate to have one, fake those bonding feelings. Reach out to your husband, hug and stroke him. Engaging in this ritual could reorient your feelings and lift you out of your temporary sadness. What you’re experiencing is not at all unusual. The French call it “la petite mort,” describing the feeling of melancholy that sometimes descends post-orgasm. Just knowing you are not alone, and that you can act close even if you don’t feel it, might be enough to get you past this.

Social Pathologist has some stats/science here, here, here, and here.

Edit: Highlighting something I almost missed, but should really emphasize: “What you’re experiencing is not at all unusual.” This is not just one women, this is a pattern.

Metal Moment: Theocracy

Today’s metal moment highlights my favourite Christian band: Theocracy.

They play some excellent power metal with progressive metal undertones.

Here’s probably their heaviest song:

Here’s the best track off their newest album and probably tied for my favourite track of theirs with the third one I’m posting. It starts slow and builds up over time until awesomeness:

Here’s their 22-minute epic:

Status Update: Life & Purpose

My blog has been in existence for just over six months now. My first post, was on my reason for blogging, and I was asked about how it’s coming along. So, here’s a post to keep myself on track.

Over this period, I’ve come to accept most of the axioms of the manosphere, although, the praxis of it is still being worked out. In particular, I’m still questioning whether or not to learn game, but am trying to adopt some of the underlying attitudes of it.

I still have not decided what I plan to do with my life, but the two big options I am leaning towards are patriarchy or MGTOW.

Recently, I’ve come to realize that I am okay with going MGTOW; I don’t fear “being alone” like I used to. In some ways, I think I might prefer it, but I do know I’m not going to marry unless it is a very old-fashioned and patriarchal marriage.

High command has let my work unit know that cuts will be occurring, so my job may be in jeopardy over the next year or so, so that might force me to decide. If that happens, I’ll probably slide to a minimalist lifestyle and work on my side businesses rather than bust my ass finding a new one. Going minimalist will likely require, at least temporarily, MGTOW.

On the other hand, I truly would like to get married and fill my quiver. I know the prevalent attitude around these parts is don’t do it, but I think the benefits will outweigh the potential costs if I find the right woman. So, I’m willing to take the risk once and if I perish, I perish. I can than go minimalist MGTOW after that. On this front, there’s a potential, somewhat long-shot wife prospect who’d looks like she might make a good helpmeet, we’ll see how that turns out.

I’ve gotten in much better health. Through eating (mostly) primal, I’ve lost 30 lbs or so, have reduced my gut significantly, and have reduced my belt notches by two. On the other hand, my daily work-out routine disappeared over my vacation and I haven’t restarted it yet. I find I go to bed too late, so I don’t wake up with enough time to do it in the mornings.

I’ve started my affiliate website project, and have created the underlying structure of it. It’s actually up on the net right now and working, but there’s not much for content yet and I still have to market it. The project is ongoing, but I have trouble finding motivation in the evenings after working. I’m setting up a block of time in December to take off work so I can really put myself to work on it.

The affiliation through my blog here, has made me about $20 so far. Not enough to do anything with, but at this rate, I’ll probably get my first check (I need to earn $100 for them to write a check)  by sometime early 2014.

I’ve recently decided I want to eventually homestead. This is a long-term plan (we’re talking over the next decade or two), but  I plan to (eventually) sell my house, buy some affordable property in the country with a large acreage, add a solar power system, get some grazing cows and chickens, start hunting, and become mostly self-sufficient on the food and energy front.  Then use a combination of odd jobs, consulting, and various small business projects for income supplementation. We’ll see how that goes (some day).

So, that there’s the life update. I’ll try to remember to put another one out in about 6 months or so. We’ll see. Cheers.

Feminism and Housing Costs

Today I read this (h/t: BitterBabe) and this one quote really stood out:

Commentators said yesterday that pressures on women to work and pay mortgages mean that many do not have the same choice over having families that their mothers did.

I’ve discussed feminism and choice before, and I’ve discussed how feminists are in opposition to the wants of most women before, but now I’m going to focus on something specific: housing.

I’m going to explain exactly where the “pressures on women to pay mortgages” comes from.

****

Housing is the single largest expense most people have (other than possibly taxes), taking up almost 35% of their income. Unlike most goods, which have gotten cheaper over time due to technology improvements, housing costs as a percentage of income has remained stable over time (with the possible exception of fluctuations due to the housing bubble and crash).

Why is that?

The primary reason is that housing is mostly a positional good.* The price of a house has less to do with the actual materials making the house and more with the desirability of the land the house resides on. This is why a house in New York costs so much more than the cost of a similar house in, say, Detroit.

The other reason is that people are using extra income buying larger homes.

For both these reasons, as people’s incomes grow higher they will generally increase their housing costs to match a proportion of their income. You see this all the time, where people will buy bigger and better houses even if their old houses were perfectly livable and they do not require more space for the kids they are not having.

As people buy more housing the price of housing goes up. So, over time, as people’s incomes go up, they will buy more housing, which will increase the price of housing, increasing the absolute amount spent on housing.

Because of this mechanic, the proportion of income spent on housing remains stable even as incomes go up.

****

So, what does this have to do with feminism and choice?

As more women have entered the workforce, they have contributed their income to their households. Because of this household incomes have increased, but, because of the primarily positional nature of housing, the proportion of income spent on housing by households has stayed the same.

So,to now purchase the same amount of housing you could purchase on a single income prior to women entering the workforce en masse you need the equivalent income of a two-income household.

Because of this, families are now in a position, where two incomes are required for sufficient housing space for a family in many areas.

Households wanting to live in certain areas are now required to have the women work rather than stay home simply to afford housing.

As more women enter the workforce, the viability of women choosing to stay home decreases.

Most women desire to stay home with their children, if they could afford it, and the feminist desire to have women be economically independent is removing that choice from them.

****

Of course, I have completely ignored the impacts of divorce on housing costs for former households and the impacts of increased demand. You should be able to figure them out yourselves (hint: they increase housing prices and costs).

****

Combine this with the unfeasible daycare costs I previously pointed, and you being to wonder if women moving into the working world has provided any benefits to most women.

Most women desire to stay home, but many are forced to work because they can’t afford not to.

But their biggest expense is only that big because women are working and one of their next biggest expenses only exists because they are working.

Is this what most women want? To be forced to work for little real benefit.

Question for women: Do you enjoy spending your days at work rather than with your children knowing that most of what you earn is not actually providing any real benefit to your or your children?

If not, maybe you should think about what you support.

****

Now, for budding patriarchs, this doesn’t mean your (future) wife has to work. What it does mean is that it will require sacrifices and good planning.

You will have to limit your desire for a bigger home (even as you need a bigger home than most, because you’re filling your quiver instead of vacationing in Mexico). You may have to commute longer or find a job away from the urban core. You will likely have to forgo other luxuries.

If you and your wife plan on having her be a homemaker, you will have to discuss this with her. You will have much less house than your peers, and this could lead to envy for you and your wife. You will not be able to afford yearly vacations to distant lands. There are numerous luxuries and status symbols you will have to give up.

You have to make this clear to both yourself and her that this lifestyle is a sacrifice and that both are willing to accept it.

In the long-run, which is more important to you though?

Your child being raised by his mother rather than strangers and the educational system. Or the status symbol of a bigger house and your children being forced to share a room.

*****

* It is only primarily a positional good, not totally. Housing does have a certain intrinsic worth and the materials in housing have a certain intrinsic cost, but, by comparing housing prices in high- and low-demand areas we can easily see that the costs of housing are primarily due to the comparative value of the land on which they are built, than the homes themselves. Of course, it can be argued that the value of the land is not exactly positional, in that being in geographic proximity to certain locations has its own intrinsic value, but this does not effect my point. My point only requires that the value of land is due to competition between potential buyers, for whatever reason, rather than for any immediate practical effect the land has on the utility of the home itself.

Biblical Alpha: Boaz

Returning briefly to my Biblical Alpha series, today we will look at Boaz, who became the forefather of both King David and Jesus. This story is taken entirely from the book of Ruth and all quotes are from the ESV.

The Book of Ruth starts off with Ruth (surprise), the loyal heathen wife of an expatriate Jew. Her father-in-law dies while in her land. Her husband and brother-in-law all die after 10 years of marriage. She converts to Judaism and pledges to takes care of her mother-in-law, Naomi. They move back to Israel. This is where Boaz comes in:

Now Naomi had a relative of her husband’s, a worthy man of the clan of Elimelech, whose name was uBoaz. And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after him win whose sight I shall find favor.” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” So she set out and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers, and she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the clan of Elimelech. And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” (2:1-4)

First thing you learn about Boaz is he’s “worthy”. He owns his own land and has numerous men working under him whose respect he commands. This is a man of status and wealth.

He see Ruth and asks: “Whose young woman is this?” (2:5)

He’s told. Then Ruth asks to be allowed to glean his fields, so he responds: “Now, listen, my daughter, do not go to glean in another field or leave this one, but keep close to my young women.” (2:8)

It’s established here that she’s much younger than him, young enough to be his daughter. Being married 10 years, she’s probably in her mid-late 20’s (they married young back then). So he’s probably, at least in his 40’s. Jewish tradition puts Boaz in his 80’s and Ruth in her 40’s.

Either way, remember that she’s a lot younger than him.

He continues:

Let your eyes be on the field that they are reaping, and go after them. Have I not charged the young men not to touch you? And when you are thirsty, go to the vessels and drink what the young men have drawn.

So, he has a number of young men and young women working under him. He is confident enough in the respect the young men have in him that he doesn’t give a second thought that they will obey his orders not to harass her. He definitely has honour in full.

He’s very generous to her, why?

But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. (2:11)

Because she’s been loyal to his kin. Good female beta traits in her and good filial loyalty in him.

And at mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here and eat some bread and dip your morsel in the wine.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he passed to her roasted grain. And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over. When she rose to glean, Boaz instructed his young men, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not reproach her. And also pull out some from the bundles for her and leave it for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.” (2:14-16)

He shares his wealth, but mostly hides it from her. He’s not doing it to buy her affection, but simply out of the goodness of his heart. A bit beta, but not supplication.

Ruth gleans, then goes home and shares with Naomi. They both praise his goodness and Ruth says this: “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.” (2:20)

This is important. A kinsman-redeemer refers to a close relative who takes on a number of duties for his kinsman, one of which was marrying the wife of of his kinsmen to continue his family line for him. So right here, Ruth’s being alerted that he’s available for marriage.

Naomi then gives Ruth some advice on how to seduce Boaz, which more or less amounts to ‘make yourself pretty and when he’s drunk sneak up and spoon with him’. So she does:

So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” And he said, “May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the LORD lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.”
…
So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. (3:6-13)

So, here he is 40+, possibly 80, lying down to protect his grain; even in his old age (40 was a lot more back than than it is today) he stills strong enough to do his own dirty work to protect his property. This was a man of Strength.

While sated and protecting his crops, a women comes to him with clear intent. Some interpreters take the “lie at his feet” to mean “got into bed with” and “spread your wings” as “take me now” (more or less), but even without this highly sexual interpretation, he is obviously being seduced by a “worthy” women half his age in the most unsubtle manner possible. That’s alpha.

Now, he lets a little bit of beta frame slip from him here, with his “kindness” and “young man” remark, but he follows it up with a disqualifier, so he’s running some natural, mild push-pull game here.

The next day: “Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there.”

Again, a high display of honour here. Sitting at the gate was for Jewish elders and being able to do so was a great honour. Boaz had some rep.

The following interaction occurs:

Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech. So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.” Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.” Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.” (4:1-6)

He convinces the man to not only forgo a new wife, but also to forgo taking some new property. He gets both a wife and some land out of the deal. A shrewd businessman; a master at his trade.

He then claims his new property:

Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day.” (4:9-10)

Both legally and in other ways:

So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son.(4:13)

Rather virile for his age. C’est non?

And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. (4:17)

The Lord rewards him by making him the forefather of the future house of the kings of Israel and of Jesus himself. Not bad.

Once again, a hero of the Bible demonstrates the masculine virtues and alphaness to the glory of God and himself. He lands a worthy gal half his age, fathers a lasting house, and becomes renowned.

Read the rest of the series here.