I know a number of cases where the guy knocks up the girl but won’t support her or the kid. (Lower middle class.)

I know of cases where the wife is making more than her husband. (middle class) The husbands seem to have no problem with this, and have no intention of redoubling their efforts so their wives can stay home someday and raise children.

In my youth, men would work double shifts to support their wives and children if necessary.

The old time attitude of a man supporting his family is fading very fast, if for no other reason than globalization has made this impractical for many men. But, we know there are other good reasons, the divorce and child support issues being very real. Women just don’t honor their vows like they used to, so why invest in them?

The govt is taking over the traditional role of men regarding the support of women and children.

Prostitution is easily available.

The only real losers (males) are the ones who marry and repent of it.

The revolution is already here.

So, why so serious?

LOL yes and the majority of the stimulus package was devoted to women READ “No Country for Burly Men” if you have not already… The only thing left is daddy government and women……

Society is built on the backs of men, the very group that is being marginalized to the hilt……IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before the matriarchy collapses..

UNFORTUNATELY it will be the men who will have to fight it out, sweat, bleed, fight and die to rebuild from the rubble……

Just how us men knew it would be when we tried to defend ourselves but only succeeded in revealing “our fragile male egos” and were labeled “male chauvinist pigs” for it.

Just leave us alone and let us go our own way.. Don’t expect money, chivalry or any type of commitment from us….Simply…..LEAVE US ALONE NOW…..LET US BE……STAY AWAY…….

Looking forward to it, Whiskey.

The short lived series Love Monkey sort of encapsulated how female entertainment execs viewed most guys. One CBS female exec was quoted as how she “loved how these guys fall on their face and look foolish.” The female execs found Joe Average looking like an idiot amusing.

It’s noteworthy that most of these shows failed VERY quickly. Many in just a few episodes. Even with women being 80% of the sitcom audience (and close to that for dramas — TV being a female and gay ghetto), there was not much appetite for this type of entertainment.

It is telling what DOES succeed in the female/gay ghetto of TV as far as masculine role models go. It’s the hunkadelic, “perfect” guy who has some sort of barrier for the girl, and follows the woman around longingly. He’s an Alpha male, dominant physically, socially, economically, and often intellectually. He often humiliates other guys interested in the female character, something that women respond strongly to (they like it).

Examples include the alcoholic, spoiled, inherited wealth wastrel men on “Gilmore Girls” who win the female leads by very expensive gifts (handbags costing $20,000 and flatscreens). The doofus ordinary guys enamored of the girls are dumped and humiliated, lacking the money and the social power to play. Pretty much every medical show has the hunky, “McSteamy” or “McDreamy” doctor character enamored of a thirty something plus woman, and Desperate Housewives has boy-toys and dominant hunky neighbors as sex objects and lust objects.

All other men are loser beta types who are gay, nearly gay, effeminate, or otherwise not bothering the female leads.

So men are divided into three parts (like Caesar’s Gaul). Beta type ordinary losers, who have to lose because they are losers. The hunky, dominant Alpha winners, who often humiliate the beta males (something the female audience LOVES), and the effeminate/gay rest of the male universe.

I think for the most part, women will be quite happy with the turn of events. Most women, will be delighted to share even just a bit with dominant Alpha males, have an illegitimate child or three, and trade-off excitement and dominant Alpha male sex/thrills now for being alone later. If their sons are beta losers, well it’s their fault for not just being Alpha enough!

Marriage as Novaseeker points out, will become the province of highly educated, wealthy, but not uber-wealthy people who wish to keep the Hamptons beach house and so tolerate discrete affairs and such. The rest will be Single Mothers and un-attached and resentful beta males. Who will quickly Chav-it-Up to retain parity with the natural and Game induced Alphas.

Bullseye.Which is why a few clever women with their finger on the pulse of society are trying to maneuver themselves back to the “traditional” (i.e. gold digger) pattern.Smartly,they realize current conditions are unsustainable.Betaboy will rescue them from their folly,like a sucker who cleans up after a wild party he never attended,and indeed,paid for.After a bit,the daughters and granddaughters of these “conservatives” will rediscover “female lib” and how oppressed they are,etc. etc..And then promptly deliver the dagger thrust to betaboy’s kidney.

I’ll wager that when it happens all of the betacons will run to their rescue,thereby sowing the seeds of a future resurgence of female treachery when circumstances change and the moment is right.Devlin touched upon this in one of his essays.

Spot-on!

You should make that a banner for your website , or something.

The idea that men can be subordinate and under the control of others and yet still be “powerful” and “sexy” simply demonstrates the stupidity of the author of the cited piece, and how little she understands the male/female attractional dynamic. Yes, women want men who are sexy and powerful, but honey, men are not powerful when they are subordinate, now are they? Men are not powerful when the law is 100% on the side of women in any aspect that pertains to male/female relations, when women can run roughshod over their husbands because the law gives them such an upper hand, and so on. No, this doesn’t make for sexy, powerful men, cupcake, but, hey, at least women are more powerful, right?

This idea that women seem to have that their empowerment makes them more attractive to men is beyond puzzling, really. I think what they don’t like to realize is that it almost never makes them attractive in and of itself. At the most a very attractive women can remain attractive despite her aggressiveness and pushyness, by sheer force of her physicality, in some cases, or perhaps by a pushy kind of sexiness. But generally that kind of “show of power” is not attractive in itself. I think women find that puzzling because it is precisely such power in men that *they* find attractive, and they project that onto us, when in fact we have a different attractional dynamic.

I do think that more men are waking up. Yes, men are feeling emasculated. No, men becoming nannies and male housewives and so on isn’t going to make them less emasculated or more sexy and powerful. No, men being subordinated to women at work does not make them sexy, powerful, or appealing to women. The reality is that this story has one endgame: handful of empowered women who have power couple relationships (two uber driven people like super friends type marriage), and a lot of women either married to men they find boring, unsexy and subordinate or women who just can’t find mates. That is the endgame. And when that hits critical mass, for the educated elite women whom it will hit hardest, we will see much wailing and gnashing of teeth, for certain.