Welmer

Exploring the East, Revisiting the West

Welmer header image 2

Defining “Social Conservatism”

September 13th, 2009 · 33 Comments

I’m not sure we’re all interpreting the term “social conservatism” in the same manner. For me, it describes the types of men and women who supported punitive measures against men who just happened to become the victims of female vindictiveness — in divorce in many cases, but in paternity and child support cases as well. They are the type of men who act as though young women can do no wrong, and hold men to social responsibilities that are quite often impossible to fulfill today (e.g. support a family alone in an era of out-of-control housing expenses). They are the kind of people who support the laws that throw young guys in jail when they lose their jobs and can’t afford a crippling support order. They are the judges sitting on the bench who sympathize with a woman who squirts tears out of her eyes to evade responsibility for her behavior. They support sending SWAT teams to men’s houses over alleged “domestic disputes,” many of which are fabricated from whole cloth.

This is what I have in mind when I think of social conservatives. Essentially, I see them as people who have a strong impulse to judge and punish others – men in particular – for flimsy or backward reasons. They justify their sadism by portraying themselves as defenders of virtuous, defenseless young maidens who, not coincidentally, are the objects of their lust. This is why one can see some very odd intersections between policy advocated by lesbians and social conservatives, who disagree violently on some other issues, such as abortion — they both have similar motives in the matter of relationships between females and other men.

Christians may know well the words “Judge not lest ye be judged,” but this is only the first line in a profound statement, and needs to be read in its proper context:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 7:1-2

So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view. He is like the heathen barbarian for whom salvation is an open possibility.

As for the social cons, I can’t say I’m all that optimistic. They’ve led us down a long, strange path to a dark, ugly place, and still they urge us along.

But I leave open the possibility that the term “social conservatism” may not be the best choice. However, language has a funny way of overriding our personal objections, so I’ve learned to take a utilitarian (or Daoist?) attitude toward it.

Tags: Men

33 responses so far ↓

  • 1 novaseeker // Sep 13, 2009 at 5:30 am

    I responded in the other thread, because Justin’s post was there. The last two posts have had consistent themes, I think, in any case. Good stuff.

  • 2 JRF // Sep 13, 2009 at 6:21 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

    “Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.”

    So yeah, your usage is pretty terrible as it takes an established term an attach a new meaning that isn’t connected at all.

    You might as well written that you despise skateboarders and then gone on and explained that you really meant old guys biased against young guys but used “skateboarders” as a convienent shorthand.

  • 3 Hermes // Sep 13, 2009 at 7:10 am

    I’m not sure why social conservatism holds that meaning for you, unless you take your cues from that ignorant blowhard The Fifth Horseman who keeps ranting about “BetaCons” over at In Mala Fide. Social conservatives are people who believe in traditional morality. I think Wikipedia’s description is a pretty good one. It states “Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.” It then goes on to list typical social conservative positions such as being anti-abortion, anti-same-sex “marriage,” pro-drug prohibition, pro-nuclear family, anti-premarital sex, etc.

    Some social conservatives may put women on a pedestal; others may have a more realistic view of relations between the sexes. But it’s holding the above positions that makes one a social conservative: no more, no less. In fact, Roissysphere HBDers who think that we need traditional morality to be society’s public norm in order to sustain a first-world civilization, though not religious in their motivations, are effectively social conservatives.

  • 4 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 13, 2009 at 7:39 am

    It is true that socon is a word that is ill-defined, and in any case is defined so broadly as to have little real meaning. It’s like “feminist”, a word that can mean a lot of things and as such has lost its power as a descriptor.

    So I’ll utter a word or two in defense of the much maligned socon.

    Some–maybe even most– socons are exactly as you say. Yet there are others who make a genuine attempt to uphold the standards, who point to the moral flaccidity of the society around them and say “that’s not right”. Not out of malicious intent, but genuinely out of agape-love.

    Some socon policies emanate from a reactionary conservatism…in other words, they adhere to traditions that have outlived their usefulness. Like male responsibility in a modern era of male disempowerment. Or the Victorian tradition of female virtue in the face of male depravity.

    If we are to make socon a perjorative like feminist is, I suppose that is something that is all well and good and perhaps even necessary, but we need to come up with a descriptor that encompasses the good moral folks who point to the correct way forward.

  • 5 Grim // Sep 13, 2009 at 10:50 am

    If socons are pro-nuclear family I have yet to see it. Creating a real en forcible marriage contract would be the start of defending the nuclear family and socons seem completely uninterested in doing so.

  • 6 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech // Sep 13, 2009 at 11:27 am

    I think the problem with socons is really more of a problem with old men (whether socon or not). My POV on socons is similar to that of Welmer’s in the sense that the current crop of old men running the churches, etc. are all operating on the old system. These old men do not and refuse to understand how things have changed. They refuse to understand how reality is different for younger men.

    This is a massive problem with old men. They constantly attack younger men for things younger men never did. They pressure younger men into getting involved with women against the younger men’s better judgement.

    During the housing bubble, I noticed a lot of these old men pressuring younger men to get married and buy houses. In addition to the fact that old men don’t have any understand why things are like for younger men now, they also didn’t understand what was going on with the housing bubble. They haven’t bought or sold a house in a long time so they just didn’t get it. What happened to these marriages was that they all ended up in divorce and the fall in housing prices was a major contributor (but certainly not everything by any means). Of course, the old men blame the younger men for the divorces. At least they were “real men” for a time since being a “real man” means doing things you know you shouldn’t be doing.

    What will be really interesting on the socon side of things will be when enough of the current crop of old men dies off. With a new generation that didn’t live most of their lives under the old system, I think we will see some changes when it comes to socons, I hope.

  • 7 JRF // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    “I think the problem with socons is really more of a problem with old men (whether socon or not)”

    I think this rings true, but with the caveat that it really seem to be more about high status men than older men.

    Biologically there’s much more incentive for men both to build alliances and backstab each other. So it seems pretty likely that men in power always will be unfavorably disposed to men that cannot offer them anything.

    Even thinking about the issue in terms of rational self-interest indicates that there’s more to be had siding with a woman than a man, all else equal.

  • 8 JRF // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    More pessimistically, the above reasoning indicates at least two things:

    1) The problem with “socons” isn’t a problem for them at all, but beneficial. Hence it is unlikely to change.

    2) Men’s competetive nature and status seeking means that there is much greater to create a male version of feminism. Especially as the male stigma of being a victim is orders of magnitude greater than for women.

    Men affiliating with such a movement will have to take the cost of being seen as losers and men posing against it will be able to score brownie points.

  • 9 novaseeker // Sep 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    I think it’s quite right to say that the current issue with socons has a large generational component to it. These guys never really had to deal with the new reality, so they are not only stuck in the past in terms of expectations, but also have very little real empathy for the current scenario.

    I think, though, that rather than a newfangled new generation of socons, we’re likely going to see something else. Why? Because it’s a key element of socon-ism that men are primarily to blame because of a failure in male leadership. In other words, because socons see male leadership as being traditional and a key part of the traditional order, they see the current scenario as being the result of men either leading badly or failing to lead altogether.

    An example of this is Dr. Albert Mohler, the dean of the Southern Baptist theological seminary. Mohler, who just turned 50 (a late boomer in other words), is relentless in his criticism of young men. He laments the fact that Christians are marrying later and later, and blames men for this. No consideration is given to family law, to the education gap, to the changes in female behavior and so on. Nope. Men are the ones who have to lead, and women will follow, so if anything is going awry between men and women, what do you do? Why, you take the young men out to the rhetorical woodshed in an effort to get them to lead again. It’s precisely this attitude towards men and women (even if women are misbehaving, that is men’s fault, too, because if men were leading properly, women wouldn’t be behaving like that) that castrates the ability of the socons to actually *do* anything about the misandrist tilt in the culture and the legal system. They frankly don’t think any of that matters, as long as men lead, and women follow. And they naively think that women will simply follow the lead of a biblically-minded man, without regard to the culture and the family law.

    Mohler is not *that* old. He is a tail-end boomer. But as a socon, he is steeped in the attitudes of traditionalism, and traditionalism holds men responsible for the misdeeds of men *and* women. That was always a bad deal for men, but in an era where men actually *did* have authority over others, it made some limited degree of sense. In today’s era it makes absolutely no sense at all. Women are empowered. They are not just going to roll over and obey men and male leadership. The reason why marriage is being delayed has primarily to do with the changes in female behavior, and the overwhelming desire of most educated women to postpone marriage until at least the late 20s for a combination of reasons — some of them relating to getting careers started, others relating to sowing some oats before settling down (yes, women are doing this, too, now, Dr. Mohler!), others relating to fear of settling in a world of seemingly unlimited choice, and so on. But who gets blamed for these social changes? Young men, of course … young men who had no hand in instituting these same changes are being blamed for them by the men of the generation who *did* have a hand in this.

    It is obscene, outrgaeous. It is a scandal that goes to the heart of social conservatism, and honestly I think it is making the socons largely irrelevant for many young men other than the most religious ones. A movement that surveys the social landscape today and blames only or mostly men for the problems we see is a movement that has no real relevance for men in these times, I think. It certainly doesn’t merit our support in any meaningful way.

  • 10 james // Sep 13, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Why do you bother with being concerned about socons or any other political grouping?

    None of these are going to have any concern for men.

    You guys need to think about something completely different; viz, a political group that is concerned about MEN.

    Forget the left, the right, the libertarians etc. Start creating/supporting a movement whose main concern is men.

    Example: Two boxers in a ring. Some of you seem to want to support the guy in the blue corner, and some want to support the guy in the red corner?

    Why support either of them?

    To hell with the boxing. Leave the match, and go support another sport.

  • 11 Justin // Sep 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    I agree with the previous perspectives, regarding the definition of social conservativism and the generational issue. If we could just use the term “old man” rather than “socon” I think that would be an improvement, and a more accurate depiction of reality.

    I will still lay down the comparison gauntlet: I assert that social conservatives as a group are more fair minded to men, and far more anti-feminist, than social liberals.

    Welmer, from your post, you mainly use activist judges as your examples, a group that I would not think is a good representative of social conservatives. We have to remember that most of the anti-male policies were NOT codified into law. They are judicial extensions of civil rights legislation, representing consequences unforseen, or even denied, by the original legislative archetects.

  • 12 james // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    All this talk about old men is wrongheaded.

    The country is not really run by old men.

    There are millions of young men who support the socialist/feminist agenda – particularly those on welfare.

    What has happened in the past few decades is that the ‘old men’ have been cowed into submission by histrionics over ‘racism’, ‘sexism’ etc.

  • 13 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 13, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Dovetailing into Nova’s missive about Mohler…

    I suspect that he’d defend himself with the notion that, as the God-appointed head of the family, men are ultimately responsible for the condition of their family. Whether or not the females put into submission underneath them actually do follow.

    I suppose, by extension, that responsibility includes the condition of society as well.

    While I suppose a “buck stops here” attitude is useful in some respects, a leader needs to have followers in order to be considered a leader. But when that leader is (a) not vested by society with the authority that a leader customarily has, and (b) is paired with a “co-leader” who is vested with authority, well then the results shouldn’t be surprising to everyone.

    People falsely laud the “Greatest Generation” as being this great bunch of people who conquered Evil so that Good may live. While that may be argued, let us not forget that they raised a generation of spoiled brats who gave the world over to the same Evil that their parents fought against. These Boomers are the ones running the show at present, and it is they who are busy oppressing X and Y men so that Boomer, X and Y women benefit.

  • 14 Pons Seclorum // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    “I’m not sure why social conservatism holds that meaning for you, unless you take your cues from that ignorant blowhard The Fifth Horseman who keeps ranting about “BetaCons” over at In Mala Fide.”–Hermes

    I agree that socon critics need to avoid that particular route. TFH labels socons as ‘betacons’ because he ascribes the passage of misandrist alimony laws to their timorous submission in the face of the feminist onslaught. The blame is theirs–and theirs alone–while TFH grants the oblivious public and scheming leftists an exculpatory pass. If, per his account, these laws which form the basis of the social landscape that surrounds us was the furtive work of a cabal, the machinations of which were not even known to punctilious insiders, why are socons to be subjected to exclusive opprobrium? Rather than study the history of ideas leading up to this period to provide some answers, TFH carps endlessly about craven ‘betacons’, a fiction which cannot exist based on his narrative.

  • 15 Puma // Sep 13, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Here is Exhibit A for what Welmer is describing:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vTUouErmu0YC&lpg=PA24&ots=5MVnUcGJqk&dq=glenn%20beck%20book%20divorce%20porn&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    (link above) Glenn Beck, in his 2007 book, puts forward his pet theory for sky-high divorce rates, and why women are filing. His theory is that men watch porn, and hence make lousy husbands. Women flee these lousy husbands.

    Great job Glenn!

  • 16 Welmer // Sep 14, 2009 at 4:32 am

    Note to new commenters:

    Sorry I couldn’t get to your comments in a timely manner today (all first-time commenters are moderated to combat spam); I was at a wedding and afterparty that went very late into the night.

  • 17 Hermes // Sep 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Because it’s a key element of socon-ism that men are primarily to blame because of a failure in male leadership. In other words, because socons see male leadership as being traditional and a key part of the traditional order, they see the current scenario as being the result of men either leading badly or failing to lead altogether.

    I think this is an unfair portrayal of social conservatism. That is not a key element; it is a belief no doubt held by SOME social conservatives, but is in no way integral to social conservatism. A social conservative is a person who holds positions such as being pro-traditional morality, anti-abortion, anti-obscenity, etc. If you hold those positions, you’re a social conservative, period. Furthermore, analysis of WHY things went wrong is not something social conservatism pays a lot of attention to. To say that SoCons blame everything on men is to impute a particular interest in them (or, should I say, us) they don’t tend to hold. The positions themselves are paramount; finding technical explanations as to why our society is going to Hell in a handbasket is secondary.

    TFH labels socons as ‘betacons’ because he ascribes the passage of misandrist alimony laws to their timorous submission in the face of the feminist onslaught.
    That’s a ridiculous argument. Who passed all those alimony laws? Who drafted the 19th amendment and the ERA? Who decided Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade? Senators, Congressmen, and judges. Powerful men in positions of high authority. In other words, ALPHA MALES.

    The Fifth Horseman seems to me like the highschooler who reads The Fountainhead, or the college freshman suddenly freed from the authority of his parents who decides he’s an atheist, thinks he’s suddenly grasped the truth of the universe, and goes around bashing everyone on the head with it, trying to shout them down until they submit. He just reads like a naive kid who doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about but is merely parroting lines he’s picked up from some authority figure he idolizes.

  • 18 novaseeker // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:52 am

    Furthermore, analysis of WHY things went wrong is not something social conservatism pays a lot of attention to. To say that SoCons blame everything on men is to impute a particular interest in them (or, should I say, us) they don’t tend to hold.

    I’m not convinced of that, really. I think when you scratch beneath the surface and actually *ask* socons what they think about these issues, most of them revert quickly to chivalry, precisely because chivalry *is* a core aspect of traditional values.

    At this stage, I really don’t see what contemporary social conservatism has to offer men regarding the issues that impact us as men.

  • 19 Lupo // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    I think this theory has a lot of legs to it. I don’t think it should be this way, but this is the way it generally is. I can think of several examples of people who eventually realized that I am, in fact, one of those horrible men who is successful, conservative and has the temerity to not have any intentions of ever getting married; more or less like Roissy, but without as much interest in using my exploits as lessons. As such, I am now considered to be a horrible person who is out there corrupting 20-something women. Personally, I see myself more as a creature of my time, who often feels like the 20-something women are a hell of a lot more worldly and corrupt than I am. What else am I supposed to do? Shack up with someone with the mentality of a $20 hooker and hope for the best? Take up the priesthood? No, thank you very much.

    You all are attributing a lot of this to the attitudes of men. I think this is wrong. The attitudes of married women (who are married to some of these men, and pretty much dominate them mentally) figure into it greatly. Married women see enlightened bachelors for what we are: a threat. We see through the imposture of the charade. We can see what lurks in their heart of darkness, and it bothers them. It’s more or less what Lord Byron said, “Women hate everything which strips off the tinsel of sentiment, and they are right, or it would rob them of their weapons.”

    Most conservative American women are psychologically the same as their liberal counterparts. It’s important to realize this. They had the same youthful experiences, and they often even considered themselves more liberal when they were single. In many cases, they are the same person. Most have the same mental furniture as any liberal American woman from their upbringing and the televised insanity that passes for culture. It’s always “man is dumb; blame the man,” and “I may be on my back now, but I could be president if I really wanted to.” As Welmer pointed out a few posts back, Jung noticed this at work. In those days, the whole psychological complex kind of worked: American women were a useful goad to their men to succeed in the world. Now a days, the whole dynamic has gone haywire, and it’s not much better on any side of the political spectrum.

    I don’t have any answers as to how to improve this dynamic, just observing it as I see it.

  • 20 Mike T // Sep 21, 2009 at 11:53 am

    Dude… this is a basically meaningless definition. You might as well say “social conservatives = people I think are the enemy.” “Chivalric assholes” is a far better label for them.

  • 21 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 23, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Welmer is 100% correct in his characterization of SocialCons, who I refer to as BetaCons.

    They are complicit with the feminist agenda. Pons Seclorum offered the alternative possibility that they are too dumb to be complicit, and instead are helpless buffoons who can be endlessly used by feminists.

    I would agree with that.

    Hermes is a jealous loser BetaCon who is a bit too low on Maslow’s hierarchy to grasp the value of Game. His deep shame from seeing social conservatism being exposed for what it is, is apparent here.

    BetaCons Hermes wrote :

    Social conservatives are people who believe in traditional morality.

    Yeah, right. Being too afraid to hold women accountable for their actions, and throwing men under the bus, is your version of ‘traditional morality’.

    Again, you have been exposed as being dangerously harmful to the well-being of the average man.

  • 22 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    Obsidian effectively ended the ‘debate’ last month about why SocialCons like Hermes and Ponsie are failures, the ‘Comment of the Month’ :

    http://fbardamu.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/august-2009-comment-of-the-month/

    Since that time, I have challenged a whole set of cowardly socialcons to rebut this essay in detail, but none could. This is effectively an admission on the part of Ponsie, Hermes, and Todd White that the charges against them are true.

    Real men step up to a challenge. BetaCons are not real men. Hermes in particular is a textbook example of projection.

  • 23 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Welmer,

    What you say is true, but it is all academic. Remember that socialcons are speaking from a position of little or no experience with women.

    If there is one guarantee with Socialcons, it is that they epitomize the notion of ‘all talk, no action’. They have a 100% failure rate in blocking the forces that destroy what they claim to cherish. Thus, socialcons will have virtually zero effect on dissuading men from learning Game. In fact, they will help men learn Game, as they provide superb examples of what men should ensure they do not become.

    Failure, impotence, and cowardice are all that Betacons have to offer. No one is attracted to this (except Betacons). The projection and palpable resentment and bitterness in Hermes’s writings are evidence of this.

  • 24 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    This is an awesome sentence from Welmer :

    “So when I criticize social conservatives, I’m not thinking of good, religious people, but rather those hypocrites and liars who hide their base instincts in a cloak of righteousness. They are the Pharisees of today; the kinds of people who mask their avarice and lust with legal constructs and false piety. The PUA, who openly declares what he is doing and honestly explains why is morally of a far higher stature from my point of view.”

    I will quote this in the future.

  • 25 Hermes // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:16 am

    I’m not going to bother writing a detailed reply to you, because you either have zero reading comprehension, or you don’t bother to read what your opponents actually write. Instead, I will simply point out to you again Exhibit A of this fact: I ACCEPT GAME! I don’t know how I can make it any more clear than that. I can’t speak for Pons Seclorum or Todd White, but I ACCEPT GAME, largely AGREE with Obsidian’s comment (which, BTW, you never challenged ME to “rebut”), and ADVOCATE that men learn from the seduction community. I say that the biggest cause of our current crisis is indeed female sexual liberation. I support men’s rights, oppose no-fault divorce, punitive alimony, and the like. The fact that despite all this you continue to attack me as a “BetaCon” shows that you’re not a serious debater.

  • 26 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 25, 2009 at 12:04 am

    Herpes,

    Then exactly what is your problem with holding SocialCons accountable?

  • 27 The Fifth Horseman // Sep 26, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    *crickets chirping as Hermes could not provide an answer to a simple question.*

    So if your stated views are merely a copy of my own, where is your problem? It is natural for a Beta to copy an Alpha, so there is nothing wrong with you adopting my views, but you will have to provide detail if we are to believe that your disagreement with me is anything more than a hissyfit.

  • 28 ztp // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:55 am

    An example of this is Dr. Albert Mohler, the dean of the Southern Baptist theological seminary. Mohler, who just turned 50 (a late boomer in other words), is relentless in his criticism of young men.

    Memo to Dr. Mohler:
    It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
    – Proverbs 21:19

  • 29 Why does it seem that American society is in decline? | Jan The Marketing Man // Jan 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    [...] from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man’s own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage, and condemn the [...]

  • 30 Manhood101 // Jan 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Modern day Feminism is a political and social movement designed to secure equal rights and legal protection for women. However, to properly understand Feminism as a whole, it is necessary to distinguish between its situational and fundamental components. The former involves only its modern social influences, characterized by the vocal political movements of the 1960s–70s. While the latter spans the entire history of gender relations, its primary objective being the supplanting of male authority.

    On its surface, the modern Feminist movement purports to protect the rights of women from male oppression, often associating itself with the civil rights movement of Afro-Americans. But this faulty rationale fails to recognize the difference between unjust oppression and healthy restriction; limiting a gender’s job responsibilities based on natural capacity is not the same as limiting a racial group’s opportunities based on appearance. This key Feminist
    misunderstanding can be clarified by examining how restriction
    affects a child’s life.

    Children lack foresight. They act according to their immediate desires without considering the possible consequences. Thus, children require healthy restrictions to protect them from harm. If this protection is removed, children will be in danger of suffering the consequences of indulging their reckless whims.

    For example, a child admiring a parent’s ability to drive a car may desire to take on that role. Even though the child lacks the mental and physical capacity to drive, he still insists on doing it. The exciting prospect of participating in an adult activity is just too enticing. Although this short-sighted decision places the child and others in danger, he lacks the capacity to understand this. Thus, he requires an adult to restrict his actions for his own protection.

    Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others.

    As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism’s reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to “steer” the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situation this creates for everyone; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional and civil service standards to accommodate women’s irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24106559/Principles-101

  • 31 Misandry and Relationships - Dating, marriage, boyfriends, girlfriends, men, women, friends, attraction ... - City-Data Forum // Jan 9, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    [...] a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage, and condemn the request for [...]

  • 32 Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form the Misandry Party // Jan 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    [...] sons with all the primitive passion of savages raiding a village to carry off its maidens. This is what I have in mind when I think of social conservatives. Essentially, I see them as people who have a [...]

  • 33 The Misandry Bubble by The Futurist (www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/ ) /January 1st 2010 « Black Whorist // Aug 18, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    [...] the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was.  Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even [...]

Leave a Comment