ARE WE NOT MULES . . . WE ARE DEVO

[Keith Martin]

or 21st Century Schizoid Mannerisms (originally published 9/4/23 on Substack) (slightly abridged for Biblical Families)



“Nothing he’s got he really needs:
“Twentieth Century Schizoid Man.”

King Crimson, from In the Court of the Crimson King (1969)​

[Just hearing the first few opening bars of this salvo of what would become Heavy Metal, one knew the Summer of Love was definitely over.]



[TLDR:CAMERA Warning*]
[Further Warning: Anecdotal evidence can be eloquent and interesting but does not challenge general rules]


This article will take certain things for granted:

• Life is difficult and unfair.
• Two (and only two) genders/sexes exist:
• Woman = Biological Female
• Man = Biological Male
• They are distinctively different from each other.
• Women are essentially dependent on men for everything; men are only dependent on women for sex and reproduction, which are each a matter of 100% mutual interdependence.
• Modern Society is very much dominated by something called Critical Theory, which has its roots in Ancient Greek philosophy, was initially popularized in the Frankfurt School (Germany), promoted by Marxism, and implemented through the practice of deconstruction (determining victimhood and scapegoats to blame), introduced in the 20th century by Frenchies Michel Foucault and Herbert Marcuse. Critical Race Theory is a hot-button issue right now, but it’s far from the only application of Critical Theory.
• Critical Gender/Sex Theory typically goes by the name of Feminism, which promotes a logically-contradictory philosophy that asserts that women are simultaneously (a) oppressed by men, and (b) somehow either equal or superior to them. Huh?
• Thus, like 99% of all other inventions, Feminism was directly and indirectly invented by men. Women were used as foils for the men who promoted such things as women's suffrage.
• In America at any given time, as well as in most cultures worldwide – and for too many reasons to go into now – single adult women tend to outnumber single adult men by at least 50% -- the ratio is only 1.2-to-1 in the youngest adult cohort (18-25), but reaches 1.5-to-1 (50%) at 30, 2-to-1 at age 35, and by Social Security age it’s 10-to-1. Current trends will probably somewhat lower this ratio but not for beneficial reasons, and really only because marriage and other long-term committed relationships are increasingly being avoided.
• In some ways, life has improved since Ancient Greece; in others it has, by design, incrementally devolved and will continue that devolution if left unimpeded. Consistently and almost universally at least since 6th-century BC, the statist ruling class has been solidly anti-family, no matter what slogans politicians spout. The Greeks invented the nuclear family and monogamy-only to disempower decentralized tribalism. [Take note of how consistently ‘tribal’ is used as a criticism; this lie has to be repeated regularly to keep people believing it.]
• Enslavement comes in many forms, and incremental subjugation is still enslavement. Those who would turn us back into serfs have designed the major structures of society to their own advantage. This includes family court systems and most major divisions of organized religion, which is a different animal from religious beliefs or any direct relationship with God.
• The ‘separation of Church and State’ is a fiction. They are now predominantly on the same page, promoting critical theory, central authority and exploitative dominance.
• The results are all around us. One such recent related outcome is that, within just the last 50 years, marital patterns have remarkably altered. Accelerated by the widespread introduction of hormonal birth control, this has resulted in the average woman spending the final 2 or 3 decades of her life bereft of meaningful male companionship – and, in most cases, in poverty as well (middle-aged men fare more poorly because of the hits they tend to take in divorce court, but male senior citizens don’t face as grim a final-years picture as their female counterparts). Critical Gender Theory has encouraged the Modern Woman to (a) be promiscuous throughout her 20s, (b) become belatedly ‘open’ to settling down with a top-flight man in her 30s for whom she’ll unknowingly personally compete with hundreds of other likeminded women, and (c) only in her 40s consider the possibility that she might have to fine-tune her expectations quite a bit if she’s ever going to find a mate; by then, according to biological imperatives, she’ll likely be incapable of reproducing, especially by the time she sufficiently compromises. Some women will strike gold, but most will not; the majority of children are now born out of wedlock, and this trend will only expand. Failing to consider that they’ve been lied to, these women will instead be hypnotized into believing they can have it all: careers, casual sex and then marriage to a very rich Prince Charming who will finance a lavish and travel-loaded lifestyle and the status-enhancing 1.5 perfect children until he becomes too boring, making it time to fleece him of his children and at least half his assets.
• The problem is that men aren’t just dispirited by this; they’re increasingly unwilling to wife up any woman – especially doing so by engaging in a legal contract with the state – so the supply of available husbands has been dwindling as the MBLs (marital bucket lists) of Modern Women have steadily grown in length and depth. Instead of believing herself, as did her grandmother half a century earlier, to be fortunate to find a good man willing to toil at work so she could stay home to cook, clean and raise their 4-10 children, the Modern Woman now expects a man to not only toil but come home to do half her chores on top of his (which she’ll ignore) – and provide her with every major appliance, gizmo and convenience – and . . . perform like a porn star in the bedroom! Some men can juggle all that, but most are becoming unwilling to pay the price of admission to snag one of these entitled modern brats. Thus, the majority of women will sow their wild oats and/or have their mostly-nonessential careers that primarily benefit ruling-class corporate men . . . but ultimately reap poverty and loneliness during their lengthy modern-technology-extended sunset years. Choices have consequences.
• Just as men are tempted to complain about women instead of doing something to change their own circumstances, women will continue to blame ‘defective’ men for the way their lives are now turning out rather than acknowledging that they screwed around so long with careers and casual sex that their life choices led them to pass up numerous men who would have made great husbands.
• And, unfortunately for women, . . . while most men can’t become fully prepared to be leaders of a household until they’re 35, most women who haven’t gotten married by that same age of 35 will never be fit to be wives – they haven’t been taught how to be good wives, and their desire to learn diminishes with age.
• Bolstering the above to further legitimize what you’re about to read is that I’m a voracious reader, an even more attentive observer of human nature, and – in addition to all of that plus a couple dozen other earlier intimate relationships with women – I’m a father of three sons and two daughters (ages 45-19), have been divorced against my will twice and once by my own choice, and believe I now hold the record for the longest-ever 4th legal marriage in the United States: 36 years and 4 months. I’ve also been a psychotherapist with concentrations in family therapy, marital therapy, sex therapy, childhood-victims-of-sexual-abuse therapy, suicide counseling, etc – and received national recognition as a disciplinary expert in running state-and-private university dormitories, both single-sex and coed. I’ve experienced and seen the best and worst of what can happen within intersexual dynamics, including, on the down sides, mutual instances of false allegations and even attempts on my life. You can doubt me all you want, but I know what I’m talking about.
• I do not hate women, and if you’ll read to the end you’ll discover that I primarily hold men accountable even for women’s misbehavior.
• Not only do I not hate women, I love them so much I’m willing to be married to more than one of them at once. This is a specific form of Bible-approved polygamy called polygyny: one man, multiple wives.

If you want to argue about any of the above, too bad – I do realize that, for many women and some squishy men, it may be especially traumatic to accept the supposed heresy that men aren’t as dependent on women as women are on men (or, alternatively, that women don’t provide as much essential value in life as men do), but, other than sex and reproduction, there isn’t anything else men couldn’t live without if all women suddenly disappeared (men would have no trouble keeping everything in working order for probably 100 years), whereas if all men suddenly ceased to exist, I think it’s safe to conclude that the remaining, female inhabitants would fail to make it 2 years; they’d probably be able to hold it together for 2 months without men, but women may not even be able to stem the tide of chaos for 2 weeks.

I’m unwilling to waste my time debating the preceding premises in the context of what is already about to be a lengthy essay, and, no, I won’t provide you with a laundry list of evidentiary references for statistics I cite supporting this article’s subject matter other than to suggest that, no matter how distasteful it may be to you, it’s worthwhile to read every word of Scripture [I recommend the literal translations one can obtain from Concordant Publishing Concern], every Dalrock blog and each of Rollo Tomassi’s five books – plus watch every Kevin Samuels video you can find online, starting with the one that made him famous: “You’re Average At Best.” What I know, though, is that you probably won’t do any of this. If you can’t handle the foregoing discoverable-by-research facts, though, you should probably stop reading right now.

I won’t mind.

After all, what I’ve written was not written for you, anyway.

(continued below)

 

[Keith Martin]

(continued from above)

But what I am writing about starts with this: on top of males turning their backs on marriage due to unrealistic female expectations, the fathers of the daughters that men are increasingly rejecting for marriage are also ironically developing incrementally-excessive expectations for what those daughters can expect to find in the marital marketplace. Lately I’m discovering an increasing frequency of fathers who promote the notion that no matter how their daughters conduct themselves in early adulthood, those daughters are entitled to inevitably find solid, dependable, righteous, handsome men with either established careers or tremendous earning potential who will be only a year or so older than their daughters and will forsake all others until death do them part.

Good luck with that.

The disturbing part of this is that I’m just as likely to encounter this unrealistic father attitude among men who themselves seek to establish plural families according to biblical principles as among men who would never support polygyny. The especial incongruency of this among would-be polygynists is exacerbated by the fact that most men seeking a second wife are more likely than the average bachelor to be looking for significantly-younger women, mostly due to their elevated desire to bring more children into the world, so they’re probably just as guilty of wishful thinking as are their daughters. However, while such older fathers – married or divorced – are seeking younger women, these same men make excuses for why their own of-age daughters would never want to marry an older man or even for why those daughters would never join a plural family.

Can you say ‘something doesn’t line up here,’ boys and girls?

These men aren’t encouraging their daughters to marry another man who already has a wife – and they’re also even more inexplicably refraining from encouraging them to marry men who are 20, 15, 10 or even just 5 years older – while they themselves seek to create a polygamous household with an additional, much-younger woman. Among those I know in the polygyny-promoting community, it’s not at all unusual for men in their late 40’s, 50’s or 60’s to actively seek to bring young women 25 or more years their junior into their families as 2nd wives.

The net effect of this is that such a man is expecting another man’s daughter to do what he really doesn’t seem to want his own daughter to do – which also implies that these men are expecting the fathers of those girls to put up with what they don’t want to occur within their own families.

This has begun to really piss me off.

Why, you ask?

Well, to start off with, as someone formerly fully active in the Biblical Families organization, I’ve been privy to scores of in-person and hundreds of online discussions in which men and women have detailed the many scriptural and societal justifications for encouraging polygyny, perhaps most notable among them being the fact that His Word exhorts us to ensure that all widows and orphans are covered by male household heads, an ongoing challenge given the consistent overbalance of single women versus single men.

Yes, for years I’ve been prepared to expand my family with an additional wife, and if God wills that another woman join our family, I’ll consider that a blessing – but I consider it less of an entitlement than an obligation, because I’m already blessed with an awesome wife, so I and other wannabe polygynists don’t suffer as we wait to discover if we’ll be called to lead polygynous families; instead, the potential future wives of men willing to lead plural families are the ones who suffer in the time leading up to those unions, because, unlike the husbands they might eventually marry, until those polygynous marriages begin, those women are not already blessed with partners, so they have far more to lose if obstacles or ignorance prevent polygyny from being considered a reasonable option.

And I guess even older men seeking biblical polygamy are unwilling to imagine that their daughters could be among the women left out in the cold.

Therefore, what probably causes me the most frustration about considering plural marriage is the degree to which my fellow prospective polygynists – and even many of the already-existing plural families – fail to translate words into actions or even to fully comprehend the needs that aren’t being met for the large percentage of women who find themselves on the outskirts of the monogamy-only marital marketplace.

We are thus treating polygyny as more of a bonus lifestyle choice than an imperative to obey our God.

(continued below)

 

[Keith Martin]

(continued from above)

How does this manifest itself?

• Even amongst supposed supporters, discouraging roadblocks are regularly erected. Here’s a big one: the fallacy that men who want to be polygynous have to first demonstrate that they’re nearly god-like in order to qualify to have more than one wife – as if women effectively left over in the marital marketplace somehow deserve better husbands than women in monogamous marriages – or as if first wives are entitled to their husbands approximating Jesus status if they’re to be asked to share him (imagine having to get permission from one’s first child before producing a sibling, on top of justifying to that child that one was a good enough parent) – which goes hand in hand with . . .
• Failure to recognize the tremendous generosity inherent in a man being willing to take on the responsibility of multiple wives and, in many cases, the children of additional women. Too many women and men speak as if it’s the man who will be lucky if an additional woman lets him provide protection, provision and due benevolence (sexual satisfaction).
• Failure to recognize that, not all, but most men who comprehend biblical truth about polygyny and then seek to implement it are already significantly better-than-average men. [Read this one twice, and then, if that’s not enough, circle back to the previous point about generosity.]
• Men fall into the trap of rewarding women for treating men as if they’re expendable. We’re not expendable. Nor are we interchangeable. There isn’t an inexhaustible supply of interchangeable men whom women can cavalierly hold off at a distance while exploitatively and frequently using them for disconnected purposes (chores; repairs; babysitting; monetary donations; chauffeuring; information; organization; protection; military services, etc. – even, in many cases, casual sex). Men should stop tolerating women who think they can parlay hints about potential access to their bodies into successfully manipulating men to take care of their every need. Men should further stop putting up with women who reject responsible pair-bonding. Avoid such women. They’re not God, so it isn’t blasphemy to turn your backs on them – and you don’t owe them chivalry or deference – you instead owe them and yourselves the patience and self-respect demanded to wait for them to recognize just how grateful they should be for the existence of men.
• Men would also be better off if they themselves stopped voicing the gynocentric trope about how a young woman won’t have enough years with her husband if she marries an older man. The Lie sounds so reasonable on the surface, but this philosophy will only fly in the now-rare case of a young woman meeting the following criteria:
  • (1) She demonstrates this limited-years-gap preference by marrying very early rather than spending years sowing her wild oats and/or emphasizing education-and-career; and
  • (2) Her actual pool of available young suitors includes as many high-value men as does her pool of available older suitors.
  • If both these conditions aren’t met, younger women who delay marriage (and their just-as-clueless fathers who support them doing so) are failing to rationally or logically assess their true prospects. The just-a-couple-years-older-but-above-average-man shelf at the Husband Store is almost always back-ordered for females over 22. As the years pass for an individual woman, the supply of high-value unmarried men continually dwindles at a faster rate than does the supply of women who identify themselves as good catches.
  • (“But he won’t be hot!”) In this respect, these women (and their ‘protective’ fathers – who aren’t actually protecting them from dangerous ramifications associated with having free rein over the choices they make; a good argument can be made that such fathers would be more accurately characterized as having abdicated an important paternal responsibility in this regard, albeit with misguided societal approval) are failing to remember that all men are not created equal and that even the pessimistic example of 20 years with a top 20% older man may be more valuable and enriching to a young woman than 40 or 50 years with an average or below-average guy (which, by the way, is itself unrealistic, because the average length of modern marriages for women who marry men less than 5 years older than them is only 7 years). The problem is that every time I’ve heard a woman or her father cite the tragedy of being married to a man 15-25 years her senior given the supposedly-truncated average length of such marriages due to death of the older man – resulting in the woman having to spend the last two decades of her life without her husband – three things are ignored:
    • Only very young men tend to seek marital partners within a couple years of their age. Thus, the older these younger women get, the smaller their pool of potential mates becomes, while the pool of women for men expands. Younger women are highly prone to making the mistake of thinking that men their age having casual sex with them is proof that men their age will also want to marry them – but it is not and in fact usually indicates that they would rarely if ever marry them. Yep – it’s a double standard, but condemning it as unfair does nothing to eliminate it.
    • In the real world, the vast majority of these women – whether because they fall into the larger group who will never find a lifelong mate, or because they’re part of the group whose marriages will end in divorce (80% of the time by their own choosing) – will ultimately be alone anyway for the last two (or three) decades of their lives, with all the same associated fates as the never-married. The real choice is not between (a) having 20 years with a middle-aged man or (b) having 40 years with a much younger one. Statistics confirm that, the older a man gets, the less likely divorce will be the ultimate outcome; statistics in this case do not back up what happens in Hollywood.View attachment 5346
    • The choice for most women instead is between spending the last decades of their lives (i) alone and most likely in poverty after decades of fruitless dating; or (ii) alone but with memories, children, financial assets and relationship-competence acquired during the marriage. In fact, that competence makes a woman much more likely to be chosen as another man’s wife in her sunset years, so loneliness could even actually become less a danger than a choice.
  • At least in the case of being married to an older, higher-value man who has already established himself and is mature enough to be an excellent husband, the woman who makes that choice will not only be able to eventually look back with fondness on her marriage to her now-deceased husband but also be much more likely to be in sound financial shape.
  • If a man knows himself to be a significantly-more-valuable-than-average man – which applies to many more men than just those in the top tier – then I believe he shouldn’t hesitate to voice that a shorter life with him would trump a longer life with an average man. In a recent interview with psychotherapist David Sutcliffe – who in many ways repeatedly argued for the tyranny of the mediocre – the infamous Andrew Tate countered, “I believe, as a man, at least, your love only has value when you’re capable. . . . Love has value when you’re at a certain echelon. If I’m in love with a girl, she can get a lot more from that love than she can get if a Joe Schmoe is in love with her, right? . . . The more capable you become, the more valuable your love is going to be.” Which also asserts that, the more capable you already are, the more valuable your love already is. As Kevin Samuels always so succinctly put it, “Men are not just dicks and wallets,” so no reasonable impediment exists to a man articulating what else he brings to the table that makes every year with him worth perhaps two or four or ten or sometimes even twenty years with the average man.
  • If women consistently pursue the more valuable men, why are those men not permitted to expect that they will be treated as if they have more value? My suspicion is that men are discouraged from tooting their own horns because women prefer for men to remain in the dark about how women make their mate choices; in particular, women prefer as much as possible to prevent men from recognizing that men are actually in the driver’s seat when it comes to forming long-term relationships (women control when sex happens; men control when marriage occurs).
  • Imagine if vehicles were sold under a system in which (a) cars were sold at lower prices to the best-looking customers, (b) customers were permitted to see what cars they were choosing from, but (c) car salesmen were prohibited not only from making pitches but weren’t even allowed to demonstrate any awareness of relative value. When a Ferrari or a BMW or even a Lexus is up for grabs, it/he should damn well seek the highest price from the best customer by touting every last feature.

(continued below)

 

[Keith Martin]

(continued from above)

• Contrariwise, a female can only advance her value by keeping her body count low (a difficult proposition the longer one waits to get married) or by being more fit, feminine and cooperative (the opposite tendency being the case under the influence of feminism). Other than through good hygiene and other forms of self-care, a woman can’t improve her SMV (sexual marketplace value) by mimicking what men do to improve theirs; women overwhelmingly prefer men with high incomes or status, but men don’t particularly care about women’s advancement potential or the homes or cars they’ve managed to purchase.
• Women should recognize another important aspect of intersexual dynamics: men are increasingly attuned to actual detrimental attitudes women develop as they advance their own careers. Parents these days are prone to encouraging their daughters (apparently even more than their sons) to get educated for the purpose of entering into a lucrative career to create a self-fulfillingly-prophetic back-up hedge in case they never get married or marry losers. However, the more money a woman makes, the higher the lifestyle she tends to expect to sustain, and the higher and higher expectations she has for how much money a potential mate must bring in – almost always expecting that he will be an even higher earner than she is. Men in general aren’t failing to learn appropriate lessons associated with this culturally-new female approach to life, and chief among those lessons is that, the higher a woman’s income, the more controlling and demanding she will be toward any male mate (this dynamic comes into play whether the woman’s career rockets upward prior to or during marriage). The effect of this is that men seeking marriage predominantly avoid getting in relationships with women with high income, because men know they’d be getting themselves into no-win, failure-prone situations. And thus women who’ve emphasized advancing careers are among the most likely to die alone. Again, men will have casual sex with them, but they rarely attempt pair-bonding, because they know these women are incapable of fully reciprocating on top of being extremely high-maintenance. Such women generally won’t be poor when they’re older, but money can’t buy you love.
• For women, the higher the income or the more advanced the degree, the more dependent on them they become, because they also become unappealing to men. As Rollo Tomassi so frequently repeats: these women have become the men they would have wanted to marry.

View attachment 5350

Note: the point of this essay is not to assert that all women should consider plural marriage, and it most certainly is also not to claim that all women should marry significantly-older men. I’m a fan of women making their own decisions, so the motivation behind writing all of this, rather than to be prescriptive, is just to help everyone make more highly-informed choices. Women typically reach peak sexual marketplace value around age 23, whereas men’s peak SMV is around age 38. This does not mean that all 23-year-old women should marry 38-year-old men – only that the genders have very different power trajectories when it comes to acquiring the most highly-desirable mate. If a man wants to maximize his odds for getting his best wife, he tends to have the luxury of waiting until his late 30s to do so, but that’s not the case for women: if a woman’s fantasy is to marry a man 1-4 years older than she is, she will have her best shot of doing so at age 23 – and that means, if that’s a paramount consideration, she better ensure that she’s fully ready to settle down before she’s 25. Probably, in general, the best shot for a successful marriage for a 23-year-old woman is with a 38-year-old man – but no one is suggesting she should have to do that. Whatever she wants in a marital partner, after age 23, though, a woman becomes less and less likely to achieve it. Unfair, yes, but that’s just the way it is. The same thing, by the way, occurs for men after age 38 – but with a less-steep drop-off.

In addition, this essay isn’t targeted to change the hearts and minds of women; I don’t even blame them for the self-defeating life approaches most today exhibit.

I blame men, so what I write is primarily directed to them.

I don’t assume I’ll persuade young (or even any-age) women to rethink the manner in which they treat men. The reward system in place reinforces a young woman for believing she has all the time in the world to get around to pair-bonding and for believing that she’ll be doing it with some Knight in Shining Armor who has inexplicably been on hold for a decade or two waiting for her to show up in his life, patiently establishing his career and reputational status while twiddling his thumbs not caring that she’s been climbed on by a myriad of young men (maybe, according to recent research, even altering her DNA in the process). Single young women are wined-and-dined, sexually-satisfied, and provided free repair-and-maintenance services with nothing further expected from them, so of course they’ll continue availing themselves of everything male chumps are willing to offer with no expectation of full reciprocity.

Therefore, I fully expect that, as long as they can get away with it, most young women (and most of their fathers, even those who themselves are seeking plural marriage with younger women) will hold on to delusions about their futures. Oblivious to the fact that female beauty ages more rapidly than does male attractiveness, they’ll also mostly continue to consider any men who want plural marriage or any men older than their arbitrary cut-off ages to be ugly, unworthy and disgustingly creepy.

But, men, you don’t have to believe those women (or their delusional daddies) are correct in their assessments. You’re not defective, immature or “threatened by strong women” because you remain attracted to younger women, and you are most certainly not defined by the ratings of women. In fact, I assert with full confidence that women are less capable of making good judgments than men are, so if you’ve internalized the opinion feminism wants you to have and consider most of your fellow men to be losers and creeps, it’s time for you to comprehend that available females can’t even measure up to available males in terms of what value they’re prepared to bring to relationships – so why do you still see yourself as a desperate cringe-worthy loser? Fighting this misguided self-assessment tendency may be among the most crucial battles in which men currently need to engage. Just because women are rewarded for downgrading male value doesn’t mean men have to accept uninformed female opinions.

View attachment 5347


Believe it or not: currently, it’s estimated that 80-90% of all women consider 80% of all men to be unattractive across the board: not just unappealing physically or sexually, but unworthy in any category: not rich or ambitious enough; not sophisticated enough; not social enough; not smart enough; not funny enough; not tall enough; not in-shape enough; not well-endowed enough; not hip-and-cool enough; and not caring enough – for them. Let that sink in: the top 80% of women considers the bottom 80% of men to be beneath minimum standards – and the majority (60%) of below-average women considers the majority (60%) of above-average men to be unqualified as sexual or marital partners. Whatever standards one uses, this means that the average woman rated as a 3/10 considers the average man rated as a 7/10 beneath her. Put another way, a 7 male isn’t good enough for a 3 female. This perception among women qualifies as straight-up delusional. Neither God nor natural selection has made women superior beings to men; if anything they were created to be in a subservient position. After all, it is women who are dependent on men for almost everything. But, for the sake of this particular part of the discussion, let’s imagine equality in regard to potential value to each other. Assuming that were the case, it’d be reasonable to stipulate that there were still as many above-average-worth men as there were above-average-worth women, just as there were as many below-average-worth women as there were below-average-worth men. Logically, that implies that the bottom 20% men should be considered attractive by the bottom 20% of women. The 20-50% men should be considered attractive by the 20-50% women and the 0-20% women. The 50-80% men would thus also be good enough for the 50-80% women and the 0-50% women. Even taking into account women’s natural hypergamy (the known fact that women prefer higher-level men than themselves, which just by itself argues against equality within relationships), it would therefore be a minimal expectation that most men in the bottom 80% should be considered worthy by most of the bottom 75% of heterosexual women, but currently only the lowest 20% of women (the 0’s, the 1’s and the 2’s) do so – and, men, you need to firmly grasp this concept: women only dismiss your value because you reward them for doing so. Stop selling yourselves short ; women can’t be faulted for buying a voluntarily-self-discounted product.

(continued below)

 

[Keith Martin]

(continued from above)

Again, I have no expectation that this will intellectually sink in within the minds of the vast majority of women (it’ll instead be labeled ‘misogyny,’ because it’s quite popular to define telling women the truth as ‘women-hating,’ meaning, I guess, that the only thing that isn’t misogynistic is to just remain silent or continue repeating the lies women want to hear), and women have no incentive to change a system from which they believe they benefit. Therefore, men, you have to accept that turning this around is just one more responsibility that will forever rest on your shoulders. So here’s what you do:

• MICRO: Change your approach: the only directpower you have:
  • Recognize that it’s demeaning and destructive to function as a Partial Husband (all the responsibilities with next to no benefits, while the woman in question has far more benefits than responsibilities).
  • Commit yourself to entirely refraining from rewarding single women with free anything that they haven’t earned. No more no-charge Husband Services, period. Period. No more free Husband Services. Period. When you provide a woman with free services that men would have to pay for, you’re guilty of encouraging women individually and collectively to continue acting as if men are subhuman servants dumb enough to mistakenly believe they might eventually get laid or earn haloes for being such chumps. The list of services ranges from repairs to performing the role of being a shoulder to cry on – especially if she’s venting about some other man she’s sleeping with. Just stop. [This goes for the fathers of spoiled single daughters as well – especially no more free babysitting. It’s just wrong to be a Partial Husband to your own offspring.]
  • Don’t be so full of false self-pride that you overly isolate; instead, develop a small circle of men you can depend on to have your back in your endeavor to surmount all challenges involved in standing tall.
  • Make a concerted effort to assess your value as a man relative to other men. All other men. Don’t judge yourself according to unrealistically-ridiculous standards that only measure you up against the very best men. Judge yourself based on where you measure up among your fellow men, confident that men in general are more crucial to human survival than are women. Find a set of standards you’re comfortable with, and stick to it. SMV is just one among many. But know where you are in the male pecking order. If you’re uncomfortable with where you fit, then set about improving your position, but the most important thing here is to be honest and accurate in your self-assessment. And remember that it’s time for women to also start being more realistic, so it’s not mean to refrain from giving in to their unmoored nonreciprocal expectations.
  • Next: start having the confidence to expect to be treated as the man you actually are. If you’re average, then expect to be treated as average – and refuse to engage with women who approach you as if you’re below average. Don’t even go out with them hoping to sway them. Don’t babysit the kids they had with some other baby daddy. Don’t fix their cars or change their tires. Don’t give them rides. Don’t set up their stereos. Don’t pay for their wifi or their cell phones. Expect to be seen as the man you are, and walk away from any woman who can’t see you accurately. And for sure don’t sleep with them if they insist on treating you as unworthy. A woman who doesn’t recognize your worth doesn’t deserve you – and in all likelihood has a tremendously-elevated sense of her own worth.
  • Stop chasing pussy. Difficult but Essential. It’s entirely acceptable to give a woman an indication that you would like to consider dating, forming a relationship with her or getting into her pants, but the truth is that women have far more to gain than men do from committed long-term relationships, so it’s demeaning for you as a man to act like you’re desperate. We’ve been hypnotized by the woman-centric culture to think we’re supposed to be the conquerors who pursue while women play hard-to-get, but if anything it would be more appropriate to flip that around. Wait for women to demonstrate that they see your worth and the value it would be for them to be associated with you.
  • Be willing to set conditions for women who want you to bring them into your family. If they’re unwilling to meet those conditions before marrying you, don’t think they’ll become willing after they’ve closed the sale.
  • Recognize that the powers-that-be long ago set up the system to be unfair to men, especially financially. Be willing to pay for dates, but always remain focused on the fact that, when relationships dissolve (which they usually do; remember that women now initiate 80% of divorces), it’s usually men who pay through the nose. You had no power to decide whether your child lived or died when it was in the womb, but the courts still generally punish men during custody battles as well as divorce proceedings. For this reason alone, as a man, one should always proceed with extreme caution before entering a committed relationship or engaging in intimate sexual relations. Don’t consider yourself lucky because some woman you like acts like she might want to marry you. Let me assure you: women are more pragmatic about marital choices than are men - and they’re damn sure much more prepared for divorce court. Take your time. Be patient. Pay attention. And determine:
    • if she can be trusted to appreciate the protection, provisioning, due benevolence and grounding you will provide her;
    • if she’ll demonstrate gratitude for all that;
    • if she will continue to take care of herself physically, remaining the attractive woman she markets herself to be; and
    • if she will bring power and peace to your life by treating you with respectful cooperation.
  • Be grounded about actual-versus-propagandized differences between the sexes. [Rollo Tomassi recently paraphrased his own Iron Rule #6: “Women are the pragmatists pretending to be romantics, and men are the romantics pretending to be pragmatists.” Women tend to love opportunistically; men tend to love idealistically.]
  • Turn off the MainStream Media (MSM) or seek out alternative news and information media that, while also not being entirely reliably accurate, can at least generally be counted on to seek and distribute truth rather than to purposefully disseminate false narratives. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is right: the MSM is Fake News, and, among other things, Fake News is dedicated to preserving the gynocentric world view that has at its core the intention to destroy both men and women.
  • Avoid getting sucked into myths about women being the fairer sex. They are indeed the physically weaker sex, but statistically they’re more prone to initiating (70% of) physical and (90% of) emotional domestic violence; they’re much more emotionally volatile and require male stability to temper that; and they are not more loving, caring or nurturing than men. They’re also not better with children. Research consistently demonstrates that, in the case of broken homes, all girls over the age of 5 (most especially teenagers) – and all boys – are better off with a single father than with a single mother. In our bones we know all that, so move it from your bones to your brains.
  • Know your strengths, and expect them to be acknowledged by potential female partners – and not just acknowledged but applauded. It’s not insecurity to expect women to look up to you for your particular strengths; instead, it’s simply a measure of whether a woman will demonstrate commitment to advancing your vision for your family – it’s unworkable to have a joint vision, because responsibility will always rest on the man’s shoulders. It’s further neither arrogance nor narcissism to moderately articulate your strengths. In most cases, one’s most powerful strengths are idiosyncratic, and, because they aren’t universally possessed, most folks aren’t capable of recognizing the strengths of others without assistance – unarticulated strengths will most often be invisible to others. Don’t head off into arrogance or false-pride territory, but, whatever your strengths are, you deserve to be proud of them, and women were created by God to be men’s helpmeets, not to be some fictional version of equal partners, so stop pretending you don’t have strengths you actually possess – and stop pretending you don’t want to be admired for them. Don’t base your self-worth on approval, but there’s no reason to refrain from enjoying it when it happens.
  • Also, don’t cave in to discouragement from other men. If a man in your circle wouldn’t sing your praises to his own mother, sister, cousin or daughter, does he really have an accurate take on your value? If not, then why not? It may be tempting to automatically assume one always needs to do some critical self-reassessment in such a circumstance, but it also just might be time to question whether your relationship really qualifies as a friendship.
  • But remember this above all else: it’s an act of generosity for a man to take on the responsibility of being the head of a household (which is why it’s an even bigger demonstration of generosity when a man is willing to take on more than one wife – no woman’s sex pays for the rest of what she receives in marriage), and expect the women in your life to actively recognize that generosity. Do not fall prey to the ludicrous expectation that her generosity automatically deserves to be described as equal to your own.
  • And, thus, never give one minute’s consideration to giving a potential wife an expensive gemstone engagement ring, nor to wasting money on an elaborate queen-for-a-day wedding. The money would be much better spent on a house or land or frankly even on an iron clad prenuptial agreement, and you don’t need to prove your worth to a woman. We are long past the era of bride prices – if you think I’m wrong about that, do some research about what characteristics were possessed by young women who could command a bride price back in the day (hint: the majority of females now disqualify themselves by age 16). Nor is a man responsible for compensating his wife’s parents for all the money they wasted on keeping their little princess wrapped up in dancing lessons, sports activities or cheerleader uniforms – any more than your potential wife is responsible for reimbursing your parents for your batting or trumpet lessons.
    (just the first minute between 0:02:16 and 0:03:09)

• MACRO: less direct but broader impact:
  • Share this article with other men. More importantly, encourage other men to adopt the Micro approaches suggested above. Strength of Macro impact comes with numbers.
  • Consider expecting your male associates to join you in refraining from rewarding women for treating men like mules who are primarily in existence to tickle the fancies of women.
  • Become red-pilled – pull the wool off of your eyes.
    • Watch the original film, The Matrix, with Keanu Reeves et al. Absorb the message. At a metaphorical level, the Blue Pill represents being owned by the ruling class that wants you to be enslaved and entirely comfortable with being obedient sheep. The Red Pill represents disengagement from enslavement, studying the matrix and understanding why the matrix (ruling class) wants us all to be blindly-obedient sheep.
    • Recognize also that no faction of our culture owns the Red Pill. Not political commentators, not Tik Tok ‘influencers,’ not weight lifters, not any particular religious orientation, not social service providers, not men’s advocates – and, as much as I love his books or as frequently as he attempts to claim ownership on X or YouTube or elsewhere to exhort us with, “Say my name” (and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, so right up front I’ll acknowledge that behavioral-psych wisdom present in his books is sprinkled throughout this essay), not even Rollo Tomassi has a corner on the Red Pill. [Biblical Families leader Andrew Amelang has frequently stated that biblical polygamy is like the gateway drug into becoming enlightened about a host of other ways in which the corporate church has ill-served us, so think of Polygyny as just one gateway drug into the Red Pill.]
    • The Red Pill is simply the process of (a) shrugging off false programming presented by any aspect of culture and (b) replacing that programming with verifiable truth. Truth is not verified by consensus; it’s verified by evidence.
    • The Red Pill is the antithesis of ‘Wokeness,’ which is a state of smugness about having one’s head where the sun don’t shine.
  • Resist the slave mind (again, love him or hate him, thanks to Andrew Tate for that one): just as the Red Pill isn’t the exclusive intellectual property of any faction, don’t make the mistake of remaining blind about any aspect of society – and that perhaps especially includes politics. Don’t succumb to the type of resignation that says, “Hey, I can’t do anything about those bigger problems, anyway.” With numbers, individuals who stand tall together can move mountains.
  • Therefore, start identifying things that destroy our souls – like most government programs. Despite knowing that nothing will change until sufficient numbers demand it, never hesitate to identify the evil-and-emasculating nature of the family court systems. Advocate for a near-elimination of entitlements that inevitably lead to women avoiding and disrespecting men because women can fall back on treating Uncle Sam (which is predominantly funded by male tax dollars and backed up by a predominantly male military) as their Big Baby-Daddy to take care of them and their children. Social Security was at least somewhat legitimate when it was set up to provide income solely to actual widows and orphans and to those who had reached an age that back then was 6 years older than average life expectancy, but average age at death has gone up by 15 years, so it’s now bankrupting us with its expansion.

As men begin to take these approaches, and as you men here know from personal experience in the wake of putting yourself out there for polygyny and other aspects of Scripture, it will be hardest on the first set of implementers, because they’ll receive minimal rewards beyond increased self-respect. Realistically, it will probably take numerous decades before conditions emerge to produce changes in family court systems or before women in general come around to relinquishing the unfair advantage they’ve had in the ‘war’ between the sexes. But, as they do, women will discover that being forced to stop pretending that they deserve equity-of-outcome will be worth the price as they rediscover the peaceful assurance a woman can possess in an ‘unequal’ relationship with a strong man. The longer critical-gender-theory-feminism and associated philosophies like socialism have been around in our culture, the more miserable adult females have become. Be an agent of true women’s liberation: liberate the women in your life from the deleterious effects of these isms.

And that means that shattering female delusions is one of the most caring things men can do for women (and for their unrealistic fathers).

It’s not misogyny.

It’s love.


“I’m convinced that the entire world will descend into tyrannical subjugation unless men in general retake their authority. Some women will be allies in this effort, but most will resist. We can’t wait for women to be our partners in crime; if men wait for women to stand shoulder-to-shoulder, all will be lost.”

Winston Borden

_____________________________________________________


[*TLDR/CAMERA = Too Long? Don’t Read?/Can’t Articulate Meaningful Engagement, Rebuttal or Argument?]

**tangentially related: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/08/26/rise-up-old-mules-rise-up/#more-250304

 

[windblown]

 

[MemeFan]

@FollowingHim @nathan Where is achievement for reading though @Keith Martin posts?

 

[Bartato]

Wow Keith! That was spectacular! Thank you

 

[NickF]

Bravo!

 

[MeganC]

Lately I’m discovering an increasing frequency of fathers who promote the notion that no matter how their daughters conduct themselves in early adulthood, those daughters are entitled to inevitably find solid, dependable, righteous, handsome men with either established careers or tremendous earning potential who will be only a year or so older than their daughters and will forsake all others until death do them part.

Good luck with that.

I very much agree.

How many such women have we seen come through this site that answer your description? They want some man to give them his all when all they had they gave to someone else.

Last year I met someone in person and told her to ditch the nose ring and get the tattoos removed if she was serious about getting a decent man. She thought this was expressive and I told her she was telling men that she was sexually promiscuous. I don't hear from her very much these days.

But at some point I hope she starts her journey to redemption and she puts aside worldly values. Until that time she has no right whatsoever to even think she should have a decent man in her life. She needs to get decent FIRST.

 

[NBTX11]

What I thought when I read title.

Devo...Whip it!

Yeah, I am old.

 

[Keith Martin]

 

[steve]

It’s a bit lengthy for a Chick Tract, but it needs to be put in print and dispensed wherever Christianity is sold.

 

[NBTX11]

It’s a bit lengthy for a Chick Tract, but it needs to be put in print and dispensed wherever Christianity is sold.

Chick Tract. Hahaha. I haven't seen one of those in a while.

 

[Keith Martin]

It’s a bit lengthy for a Chick Tract, but it needs to be put in print and dispensed wherever Christianity is sold.

You honor me greatly, Zen Trucker!

 

[Keith Martin]

Chick Tract. Hahaha. I haven't seen one of those in a while.

I have a whole BOX of them.

 

[NBTX11]

I have a whole BOX of them.

I once attended a conservative Baptist Church where it was almost mandatory that you walk around with a pocket full of tracts in your front shirt pocket and hand them out at restaurants and gas stations.

 

[Maddog]

I have been reading and re-reading the first chapters of Isaiah and am reminded quickly of Is 3 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

 

[Maddog]

But the pendulum will swing back in Chp 4 when those women will reach out to men for a new identity.

 

[steve]

But the pendulum will swing back in Chp 4 when those women will reach out to men for a new identity.

I think that the change comes when they realize the shame/reproach of not being under authority. And that may be what you are saying.