Many men these days talk about the value of foreign women over the typical American lass. Its true they have their many greater preferred features, however that doesn’t mean one can simply throw caution out the window and just grab any old Ukrainian and be happy or successful.
Many men are scammed and or have bad luck with foreign brides. However the new type of man seeking foreign women is different and it is important to note why.
In the past most of the guys who took a foreign wife were servicemen stationed in the country of their wife’s origins or losers who didn’t stand a chance in the dating market and knew a women from another country wouldn’t be so picky if she got to live in America in exchange.
Today’s men are different. The servicemen and losers are still there, but there’s that new man who simply wants a classic women as his wife and not Uncle Elmer’s sow.
Still for these men they must be careful. The women they seek are not so desperate anymore, many men from many nations see the appeal of these women and a commoditization has begun. These women will deceive you, perhaps not viciously, nonetheless.
However this warning is perhaps not so needed. For the loser types who previously sought out a foreign wife cause they couldn’t hack it otherwise, are more likely to be screwed. Their desperation forces them to act often without rational thoughts. They lack the ability to step back and look at things from outside their own perspective because they are too wrapped up in the excitement of finding an attractive, exotic, women the likes of which they never had a chance at previously.
For the new man, he looks abroad not because he can’t find anything at home, but because what he has found at home is unsatisfactory and not up to his standards. Because of that he can step back and question himself and his thoughts to make sure that he is not sacrificing his standards simply because the SE Asian hottie he’s eyeing is more feminine that anything he’s ever seen. He is less likely to let his judgement be clouded by excitement. (and it is exciting no matter who you are)
SUGAR LAND, Texas — A 33-year-old Sugar Land mom is accused of having sex with her daughter’s 14-year-old ex-boyfriend.
Mmm, what a charming woman. I’m sure her husband is pleased. Of course I’m assuming, but surely she has to be married to the fella who knocked her up at 19 right? I mean that’s not a mistake anyone makes in this country. We’re all about commitment to family as well as thinking ahead.
The good news is that her lucky daughter won’t make the same mistakes. See she’s got mom as a role-model and no knows what not to do, I’m sure that’s what mom will be telling her through the plate glass window in prison. Doubtful she’ll sit there and complain about it.
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is taking heat for calling the companies work from home employees back into the office. Not surprisingly the feminists are rather upset by this.
How dare a woman do something that undercuts the benefits feminists have fought for. The work at home mom is a hero, she can have it all, a family and a career.
Except when that mom has to handle the responsibilities of both. Then she can’t really make it work. Having to actually show up at work poses a problem. They can only have it all, so long as we suspend the rules and allow them to play in their own ‘womens only’ league. Why should they have to compete against men, they’re women, they’re allowed to have it all without the responsibilities, scores are calculated differently based on gender.
Feminists aside, if you work for a struggling company that has hired a CEO to turn things around ant that CEO says everyones butt belongs in a seat in the offices then that’s what you do. There’s nothing wrong with telecommuting if you can guarantee the effort and results of the employees but if you suspect you’re not getting the most out of them, then call them in and make them act like professionals. Dress like a professional, go to work like a professional, and you might just start producing like a professional.
Just minutes ago I linked to the Chateau.
Here’s why. Roissy always challenges the status quo and leaves no point unexamined, no issue sacred. Not to mention he’s a great writer with an excellent style.
But the thought that really got me thinking was that he has certain expectations for men and women. That he recognizes the idealized version we all know and want in society but fail to find on a regular basis.
So what I pondered to myself is why don’t we have higher standards today than we did say one hundred years ago? It seems back then that things were very proper. From the personal accounts in the history books I read it seems that there was an impressive amount of unknown(to us today) mischief going on in those times but that people still conducted themselves with dignity and standards in public than we only mock today.
So what happened from then to know?
We lost the aristocracies and truly recognized upper-classes of that time. Even the middle-classes strove to replicate as close as possible the actions and behaviors of the upper-middle and upper classes.
I quickly debunked my own idea.
We still have an upper-class, the wealthy, and the visible elites are still all around us. However instead of Kaisers, Tsars, Dukes, and Counts as our social leading lights for the bourgouise merchants and workers we now have actors, rappers, and whole families famous for literally nothing leading people who live for…literally nothing.
It is not that the upper class no longer exists it is instead that it merely has been replaced by those not of the highest pedigree but more likely the lowest.
It’s not who they are that we respect, it’s what they do that we’ll watch that makes them worthy of our highest accolades and awards.
I’m certainly not making an appeal for a return to monarchical controls, in fact I’m not even saying anything about that. I would say most of the blunders in history are due to some Lord too arrogant to think anyone else knows better.
I’m simply saying that a society is only as good as those it holds in esteem as its representatives. Looking at the representatives we have now, we should feel embarrassed for ourselves.
These are not esteemed people, these are steaming piles of excrement.
Dennis Prager is someone who regularly brings up the situations of men and women on his radio. In my mind he does a good job of combining intelligence with common sense in an easily understood manner.
Just earlier today I heard a segment on his show about men, women, and love. I didn’t hear the whole segment so I don’t know if his statements were based on any piece of news or data.
Paraphrasing what he said is, “women want to hear I love you more, and men want to know they’re respected”.
Short, sweet, and true.
Women want to feel loved by their man, men being different, want something slightly different. They want to know they’re respected. Essentially what that means is that they want to know that the woman they love respects that love. That the love they give is not going to waste and is appreciated for its value.
On Manosphere blogs one of the things that is pointed out in order to refute claims of “male privilege” is the suicide rate of men versus women.
Here’s the data on that;
Of course there are many factors that have a part to play in suicides and without being able to ask the victims why they did it it’s hard to know for sure. Therefore it is next to impossible to know the cause on a case by case basis. However because the statistics lean so heavily towards males that probably tells us a lot anyway. Enough to understand the root cause.
Perhaps it’s simply that women are better at handling the issues that cause suicides, or that they simply don’t have the gumption to do that much harm to themselves. Though more than likely it is that men have more to live for and thus a failure of life for them is more inexcusable.
Men want to work, to provide. To be able to succeed in something in order to raise their family and pass on their name. There are thousands of years of civilization that prove this. We can debate the finer points of that issue, as to whether regular Joe could’ve gone his own way a thousand years ago or not, but the fact is he(all men) didn’t.
Men have a higher standard of what is an acceptable life’s performance than women. The average man, despite feminists best efforts, still wants to work and support his family. Failure to accomplish that, to provide for his family, leaves little else for him to do. If he fails at the biggest purpose he has been given it is of little consolation that he is a good farmer, carpenter, or IT tech.
Women on the other hand, haven’t got as much to live for. Oddly enough, womens traditional role was to care for the family that the male supported. It is because of that, they are less likely to feel like a failure. If the husband fails to provide for the family, it has little to do with her ability/role to care for the family. It may make it more difficult, but it doesn’t diminish her role in any way. She can not be a failure because of his failure.
If the husband/provider is a failure he has failed grandly. It is much harder(almost impossible) for a wife/caretaker to fail because the responsibility is on a secondary level to the providers.
This combined with men and women’s different capabilities in mental processing is what contributes to the high male suicide rate. When men fail they are more likely to simply take themselves out. In their mind, what else can they do, what use are they?
Therefore it is safe to assume that in a modern, feminist society that demeans men and belittles their work and often casts them adrift without any concern for mental well-being and desire to work and provide is likely to create an increasing rate of suicides. However, I would be willing to bet that among the Red Pill & MGTOW crowds, that their awareness of the issues and often willful removal from the system or at least its mentalities, have a far lower suicide rate than the average male of the system.
Women, Muslims, Blacks, Immigrants, Jews. Pick a subgroup of people and you can find a complaint against them and also someone who will defend them undoubtedly saying “Not all (insert group here) are like that”(NA?ALT).
Since Muslims probably come up the most in general society today for this argument, we’ll use them as the example.
“Muslims are all terrorists and want to destroy America. They’re happy when bad things happen to us”
“Not all Muslims are like that. I know lots who are very patriotic.”
However what is missed by the NA?ALT person is that some Muslims are like that. So when somebody generalizes about Muslims, and they in turn generalize that it’s not true, their response includes all Muslims simply because they are defending them and therefore aren’t going to pick who does or does not qualify.
The bad Muslims have to love this. These people will argue and fight to defend all Muslims regardless and try to get them a pass so they receive less scrutiny for being Muslim, allowing them to move about and do their thing more freely.
In the “Not all Muslims are like that” frenzy, they group all Muslims together because by the nature of their position they can’t exclude anyone. They’re so intent on proving that most Muslims are actually good and decent people that they’re not willing to point out the bad ones.
What could be better for a person of a questionable lifestyle than to have people arguing that it’s wrong to classify you as representative of all of your group and therefore gets you off the hook.
While it may be true that NA?ALT, that doesn’t mean that behavior doesn’t happen and it should therefore be pointed out.
Rather than saying, not all muslims are terrorists, not all women are sluts, not all Jews are greedy, etc. it would be smarter for the people who want to defend these groups to do so while at the same time going after the actual bad ones. Help these groups by pointing out the more unsavory members as being unrepresentative, rather than giving them a blanket to hide under with everyone else.
I’ve read in a few places that October is breast cancer awareness month and as such the NFL is awash in pink uniforms to promote that. The only place I could find an article is from Hawaiian Libertarian.
The articles I’ve seen and conversations I’ve heard run the gamut, from support to indifference to indignation.
One thing that is commonly heard from the indignation crowd is that the presence of pink uniforms, and women is taking the manliness out of football. They say football is one of the last sanctuaries where men can be men without the overwatchful eye of women, manners, and behavior holding them back.
Here’s what I don’t get. How is watching football manly? If you’re one of the guys on the field participating sure, but sitting on your couch or even in the stadium watching other guys play a game is manly?
Roman gladiators were manly. The spectators, were just spectators. The gladiators killed and risked their lives as their job, the spectators just showed up to watch. Virtue does not rub off or appropriate itself through proximity. You have it or you don’t.
Or is it more because it’s a place where men gather together for similar interest? If that’s the case then star trek and comic book conventions would be equally as manly.
I admit I’m biased. I have’t watched a football game in over 2 years. I’ve been in a fantasy football league the past few years but I find it to be a waste of time and boring.
Sorry guys but I don’t see how sitting around and watching other men qualifies as being a manly activity or gathering.