Tuesday, October 04, 2011

You Started It, But We'll Finish It

Warning - this is a long one, so pour yourself a martini or a Rupmie.

As I age I get more and more of this thing called "hindsight."

Commensurate with this I also gain confidence when I look back and realize that, yes, though I made many and horrible mistakes in my past, for the most part I played it straight, played by the rules and was a good guy. Even more so when you consider what information I had available to me at that time and what environment I was in and sometimes the outright lies I was told were "truth." Whether my decisions panned out for me or not is irrelevant. I tried my best and sometimes am amazed I even succeeded this much.

Regardless, you combine these two traits, hindsight and confidence, you get authority. The authority to look back at life and start making claims that aren't opinion, they're fact. Facts like HR is a worthless profession that has caused more damage than helped. Facts like just because they're older than you does NOT mean they have more experience or intelligence (matter of fact, they're just more prone to corruption, age does not command respect). Facts like democrats play on the ignorance and feelings of well intentioned people as well as fan the flames of jealously and merely bribe people to vote for them with other people's money. These are facts. Not opinions.

But the fact I'm going to talk to you about to day is a fact about the "war of the sexes."

Oh yes, there is a war. That's a fact that I don't even have to defend. But who started it in its most recent form? Some will claim that is a matter of opinion, but sadly once again hindsight and confidence permit me to authoritatively state it was women. Hands down, and that's a fact.

It is here that the "enemy" in this battle of the sexes will now go into knee jerk hyperdrive reaction. Claims of sexism, mysoginy, blah blah blah. We've heard it all before for the past 40 tiresome years. They will ignore my claim it was women who started it (let alone be open minded enough to ask why I've come to this conclusion), in part because they're rank and file enlisted soldiers, brainwashed not to think, but react immediately to protect the hive and the ideology. There are others, let's call them "officers" who know full well what they were doing, but will still feign ignorance and act appalled, because if they didn't, then it would belie their ulterior motives.

But again, I'm not some 18 year old rube who is fresh off the assembly line. I'm not some "nice guy" anymore who was brought up by a single mom in a very asymmetrical manner when it came to the sexes. I'm not that honorable guy why kept on thinking "what's wrong with me" and never developed the courage to say, "what's wrong with society." And I'm certainly not the guy who is going to take it personally when I start pointing out genuinely inconvenient truths and am called a bigot or a racist or a misogynist or pick any term from the communist/feminists playbook.

No, I'm the experienced guy who went through the meat grinder and amazingly has found himself in Bayeux alive, intact and only strengthened because of the experience. And given the hell I had to go through, you damn right I know what's going on. And like hell my experience isn't going to help the boys landing on the beach right now, because nobody, absolutely nobody deserves to go through that hell again.

So let us start out with a very simple question - why is there a battle in the first place?

A simple question, but one that needs answering. What did men do that was so horrible that we deserved the ire, the hatred and the war that was waged against us? The reason I ask this is at least in the beginning, I did nothing to offend or hurt women. As a boy and a young man, I did everything I was told. I was nice, I was kind, I was sweet. I did PRECISELY what they women told me to do. And not only did I not succeed in dating any of the women I pined after, I was actually ridiculed, berated and demeaned. I remember girls acting like they were going to go on a date with me or show up to a dance with me, only to find out it was a joke. I remember getting slapped in the face no less than 4 times before graduating from high school and for reasons that were so innocuous the only one I could remember was flirting with a girl and rummaging through her purse (which obviously earned me a slap across the face). Not once in my entire life have I ever struck a woman.

Now, if it was just one guy, one lousy nerdy guy out of 150 million American men with these experiences the evidence could be considered anecdotal. But it isn't. You ask the majority of men who are essentially NOT of the WWII generation or older and I guarantee you the majority of them (not all) were the exact same way and had the exact same experiences. Started off nice, with the best of intentions, tried their best, maybe even bought a girl flowers and probably have a score of 0-4 when it comes to slugging the other sex, all of which resulted in a big fat zero when it came to courting success.

Of course at the age of 18 or 19, your average man is still too clueless and lost to know what's going on. It's like they landed at Omaha and just got pounded by some German 88's. They're dazed, they're confused, they aren't even cognizant enough to ask "why." They're just taking a beating.

Of course that is the question. "Why?" What on god's green earth did we do to you to deserve this in middle school, let alone the following decade? We came with flowers and innocence and kindness and with the best of intentions and asked you on dates, only to get slaughtered.

I personally cannot answer the question why. I can only guess. And if I had to guess I'd say it was because feminists from the 1960's had so indoctrinated you as children via the schools or even feminist parenting you had a predisposition to view men as the enemy. Never mind the then 13 year old boys of our generation and successive generations never did anything to "oppress you" or "keep you down." Never mind for that matter the men of the WWII generation and Baby Boomers didn't do anything to oppress women either. No, you just were programmed to view men as the enemy, as your oppressors. Dirty disgusting boys that "you should throw rocks at" if I recall the t-shirt logo correctly.

Perhaps it was because of a lack of fathers or father figures given the new penchant women have for divorce. No man in the house to teach you how to treat boys, or perhaps there was a man in the house, but he too is still being shelled by his wife into submission and becomes the complete beta male incapable of providing a decent male role model.

Media? 90210 anybody? Melrose Place? I'm trying to think of other demented shows targeted towards young girls that would warp their formative years in how to treat boys, but I'm grasping at straws as my memory fades. To quote Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Perhaps it was a combination of all three."

Ultimately though, sadly, the reason "why" is moot. It doesn't matter why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It doesn't matter why Islamic-nutjob assholes bombed the WTC. And it doesn't matter why boys received such a hostile reception upon hitting puberty. All that matters is what happened.

Second, along the same lines of "why" is something more fundamental to men and women and courtship in general.

Shouldn't we like each other?

I mean last I checked men and women were kind of designed for each other a little bit. And I ask this one question as it applies to a whole bunch of different levels.

Isn't dating supposed to be fun? Shouldn't we go out and have a good time? No, there has to be drama, chaos, crying, rules, stipulations, rule changes and that's just assuming the poor guy can navigate the mine field and actually land a date. And oh goodie! Look what he gets to look forward to!

Sex anyone? Is it not enjoyable? Why "hold out?" Why attach strings to it? What evil possesses you to use it as a bargaining chip whether you're married or not? And dare I suggest using sex to extract resources is the definition of prostitution? Or is that cutting it too close to the truth?

And the ultimate one that will confuse me till I'm dead, marriage or committed relationships. Aren't you supposed to SUPPORT your husband? I don't mean financially, but emotionally, aren't spouses to support each other? You know, be there for each other. If there is empirical proof that the war was started and continues to be waged by women, this is it. The reason why is it is the EXCEPTION when a wife actually supports and takes care of her husband. He comes home, beleaguered from his work. And she dons some heels and a little outfit and pours him a martini. That's what I'm talking about! Unfortunately, the VAST MAJORITY of marriages the women AT BEST slightly nags him or leaves him alone. Most of the time the women are harassing, berating, lecturing, complaining or just plain fighting against their husband. Why on god's green earth did you get married in the first place??? Better yet, why should men get married at all if instead of supporting them you are constantly fighting against them, if not just simply wearing them down? What's the upshot? And again

WHY???? What did we do to you?

Third is a very shrewd observation on my part. You already know about me getting hit 4 times in high school because the girls at the time liked the power trip. But there were other instances of what was completely unacceptable or idiotic behavior on the part of women/girls, primarily in their teens and 20's. One that is a bit innocent is the "I have a boyfriend in Brazil." This was a popular one when I was in middle school and high school and it was amazing how many girls had real boyfriends in different continents. Another more dangerous, if not psychotic one was suicide threats. I had no less than three women threaten suicide while I was dating them. Temper tantrums were also very popular. I remember trying to drive on 35W (just south of where the bridge collapsed) when my girlfriend at the time just started screaming (she was from California). Another girl from California punched me because I refused to have sex with her. I remember third throwing her phone and pictures and everything around her apartment (the argument of which again I can't remember). And I cannot fully recall the infinite number of head games, mind games and flake outs I suffered in my 20's.

"Pick me up, I'm ready!" 30 minutes later, "Oh, I'm sorry, I have a headache."

"Let's meet at Mancini's!" "Well my morbidly obese friend decided to show up with us, you don't mind do you?"

"Here's my number. Call me!" .......................

But isn't it interesting...

very interesting....

(can any of you guess where I'm going with this?)

(I'll give you a couple more guesses)

(it is quite shrewd an observation)

how after the age of 28, 29 30 or so, all that drama goes away?

I haven't had a girl threaten suicide on me since I was in my twenties.

I haven't had a girl throw a temper tantrum on a busy interstate since I was in my twenties.

I haven't had a girl hit me in quite some time.

And you know, there's been a shocking lack of mind games and flake outs since I passed the 30 year old mark.

Could it POSSIBLY be that this was nothing more than FULLY CONSCIOUS self-created drama to get attention? And could it be that they fully well knew what they were doing? And it is NOT that they "grew up" all of the sudden when they hit 30. That they KNEW FULL WELL it was wrong to hit men at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL throwing temper tantrums were wrong at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL threatening to commit suicide was wrong at the age of 10. And they knew FULL WELL it was wrong to lie at the age of 10.

They just had no problem using it till the age of 30 because they knew us men/boys were naive enough to think it wasn't on purpose. That there might have been something psychologically wrong with them, or worse, we blamed it on ourselves.

But again, I'm not here to lecture people about such stupid behavior. I'm just asking the question WHY?

What in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick is the purpose in doing that or employing such tactics? It certainly wasn't "well intentioned." It certainly wasn't "in our best interests." It's like using biological warfare against orphans. It was an act of war.

And finally (though there are many examples more) is something that I will intellectually honestly admit I do not believe women do consciously or maliciously, but still has an effect (and this is actually a matter of opinion, so I will grant you that). And that is your voting preferences.

Not so much in a "republican" or "democrat" sort of sense, but rather how you vote or what governs how you vote. You vote with your heart. Admirable. Honorable. But sorry, stupid and naive. Not because of your aims to help out the children or help out the poor, but there are no brain cells in the heart! ie-You only look at the intended consequences of policies and politicians you vote for, but so poorly think through the unintended consequences and ramifications, let alone what ulterior motives politicians and their political donors might have.

Hidden behind the socialist agenda of "helping the children" or "helping the poor" is a huge and financially IMPOSSIBLE price tag. It's not feasible, but nefarious politicians know how to tug at your heart strings and make you vote for them. And since federal and state government finances are not as exciting as The View of People Magazine, you fail to understand how the true costs of making everything free to everyone are simply masked and deferred with debt (if you don't understand that last sentence, then I strongly suggest reading more Cappy Cap and watch less Sex and the City). With the right to vote comes the responsibility of being an informed voter. And just "going with your heart" or "voting for the little guy" without bothering to look up the budget or the finances of the country/state/county simply destroys the nation and your future AND the future of your kids (which is an argument for another time).

But that's not the worst of it (at least as it applies to the battle of the sexes).

The worst consequence of your voting patterns is the replacement of men with government.

And, frankly, it's already done.

You really don't need us.

You have affirmative action, tons of social resources at the state and local levels, welfare, WIC, EBT and a legal system that is pretty slanted towards your side when it comes to divorce and the divvying up of a couple's assets. You have a public school system that is progressively taking a larger and larger role in baby sitting...errr....bringing up...ummm... "educating" your children and more and more laws passed governing and regulating how children are to be brought up. If you don't have a husband but want children you can adopt, have an IV fertilization, surrogate, etc. etc. Society is on your side because no individual is more celebrated than the single mother or the single woman "living in a man's world." In other words you have voted in a system where the only role men play is that of a tax payer and not that of a father or a husband or a lover, leaving us to ask once again the question, "why, what did we do to deserve financial slavery?"

Now, of course, some of you like that idea. Which only proves my point further because it shows some of you really just wanted men as financial slaves. But there is a consequence to this. There is a cost. And you may be starting to notice this. That there is a price to pay for all the mind games that were played. The dates that you flaked out on. The tantrums, the drama. The dishonesty and lying to men about what you wanted and what you didn't want. The divorce, the alimony the child support. And myself, along with every other guy who made it to Bayeux alive can see it now in beautiful hindsight.

Some of you in your 40's, 30's, even upper 20's are asking "where are all the good men?" Some of you have given birth to BOYS and now you have disadvantaged-skin in the feminist game you may have helped create. Some of you, fresh off divorce and enjoying "post-marital bliss" are realizing the men are not knocking at your door like they were in 1981. So continuing with our "battle of the sexes" analogy, perhaps I can describe what is happening and the consequences for waging an uncalled for war on us.

There is a battlefield. On one side are the girls and on the other side are the boys. BOTH of us have been told by society, media and nature or "genetics" to go and find somebody from the opposing team. It is a strong urge, arguably the strongest biological force there is, and thus the attempt to meet ensues. If this was 1940, the battle would look something like this.
Girls liked boys and welcomed them over.

Men were happy to oblige. Not really a battle.

Of course, that's too easy and remember, our WWII grandfathers were of course abusive, misogynistic sexists. So the sexual revolution of the 1960's was absolutely necessary so we could punish future, unassuming, innocent generations of boys for the evils of our WWII generation grandfathers. The Baby Boomers beget Gen X and beget Gen Y so that when teenage boys hit the NEW and IMPROVED battlefield today it looks like this:


It is a veritable battlefield.

One sided, but veritable.

Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question. "How long will the dismembered stickmen boys stay on that battlefield?"

And the answer actually varies depending on the stickman. I got out at 25. I know some men left the battlefield as early as 18. I know men in their 60's who are still wandering around on the battlefield just as dazed and confused when they first landed 42 years ago. Some never get it together and stay on that battlefield till they die in the real world. But I would say on average 15 years.

So by the time a young man hits 30 or so, he starts questioning why he is there taking a pounding. He starts to question why he is even trying to date one of these girls in the first place. He starts to remember his parents getting divorced or a friend's parents getting divorced or ONE OF HIS OWN FRIENDS GETTING DIVORCED. He even starts to question whether he should follow his biological imperative or just get a vasectomy and live the bachelor life forever. And it is at that point he crawls over the hill, stumbles over all roughshod and shot up with holes and joins us in Bayeux.

Sadly here the battlefield analogy ends, because unlike real soldiers thrown onto the Normandy beachhead, we have the option to stop fighting. We have the option to stop participating in the battle. We can give up. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the same for women. Oh, sure, some women can throw in the towel and go on and lead happy lives, but whereas I would think only 5-10% of women can genuinely override their genetic hard-wiring, I would say nearly 60-70% of men can do it. Besides, you've been giving us great practice and incentive to do so since we were 14. So it's not that hard of a jump.

Naturally, when men declare they are leaving the battlefield or women find out they are leaving the battlefield the question of "what??? You're just going to give up?" follows.

And then comes the textbook fear-mongering questions that REALLY are a sign of desperation from the "enemy." I've been so kind to answer them too;

Q - "So don't you want to ever get married and have kids?"

A - No, like my freedom and my money

Q- "Do you want to die ALOOOOOONE in a nursing home?"

A - No, i won't die alone, I presume there will be other people there my same age and as I always have done I will make friends there. Additionally, if I make it to a nursing home, because of the fact men die 10 years before women, I will be a mack daddy and will have multiple women chasing after me. Besides, isn't it pretty arrogant to marry some one, let alone have children for the sole purpose of them providing you entertainment when you age?

Q - "Who's going to take care of you when you get older?"

A - Well, thanks to your voting patterns all health care and social security is free. In short, your children will be taking care of me. Additionally, again, are my children to be slaves to take care of me? Is THAT why I should have children and get married? To have slaves? Thankfully I had a vasectomy while you had 4 children from 3 different guys and you voted democrat all the time. Tell them I say "thanks for being my unwilling and unwitting slave."

and so on and so forth.

The reason for the questions is women (and people in general) can't really understand or believe you're giving up. They can't believe you're abandoning your primary biological motive and just up and going. People, but particularly women, can't fathom what would be better than a life with them and can't imagine a place where you'd be going once you leave the battlefield. But here ladies is where the men are going:


You see, they are leaving the market. And the reason why is that yes, as youth we had these dreams of meeting a beautiful cool, intelligent woman. We had dreams of finding a really neat girl and maybe settling down with her. And yes, the biological drive was very strong. But when our entire youth was not just wasted, but a negative experience, nay a PUNISHING EXPERIENCE you realize around the age of 30, that is was all just a lie. That or a bill of goods somebody was trying to sell you. At this point most men go through a depression (notice how suicide in men jumps around age 34 and then drops), but most of us look at life and say,

"OK, maybe I'm not going to find that really cool chick I wanted to meet, and maybe I did waste my youth at bars and clubs, and maybe there is no need for me as a role of a husband or a father, but now I'm no longer wasting my time. I'm doing what I want."

And BOOM! They enter Bachelorland.

Bachelorland is a magical place. A place where you get to keep the majority of your money. A place of true freedom where you get to do;

what you want
when you want
how you want
say what you want
hang out with who you want
do what you want
say what you feel

and there's no guff or nagging about it.

Once we pay our taxes to subsidize other people and other people's children, we still have the majority of our money to spend on ourselves. More importantly we have the majority of time to spend on ourselves. And better than that, society has advanced to the point there are LIMITLESS intellectual, physical, video, artistic and other pursuits to pursue and enjoy a happy, fulfilling life. We got our pals, we got our friends, we got a life.

And that (and you need to sit down for this) IS WITHOUT YOU!

No nagging, no crying, no drama, no divorce, no child support, no "my child comes first" BS, no jumping through hoops for sex, to abuse, no slapping, no flaking, no psychotic behavior, no mind games, no half my assets, no nothing.

You're gone, you're outta here, you're irrelevant.

Congratulations! You "won" the battle and men have surrendered! Now leave us alone.

Now who are the winners and who are the losers in this? Well, unfortunately there's more losers than winners.

The losers number many. Notably the women who continue fighting on the battlefield when there's nobody left to fight. Be it because society, media and feminists constantly barrage them with images of Sex and the City or EPL or they can't override nature or they just plain can't believe there are no more men left on the field, they continue to fight essentially no one. Ironically "fighting" against men while trying to attract one Enjoy the cats!

Also in the losing category are the men who had to suffer such BS for most of their youth, and worse, those men who never realize they're being shelled. They wander through life confused and befuddled about something that must not only take an inordinate amount of brain power obsessing about, but something that certainly must lower their life expectancy. They never achieve true happiness because they think it lies through the battlefield instead of getting off the battlefield and living their own life.

But, third, is the biggest and most innocent victims of them all. Admittedly this post has been very broad with the brush. I talk about women and men in general because it's impossible to have a conversation about it if you don't generalize (of course feminists and liberals love to use this technicality as a means to accuse you of sexism, but as I pointed out before, we know their political incentives and I plain don't give an ef anymore). However, there are obviously women who do not fall under this category and are not the malicious or warring types. These are the innocent and most undeserving victims.

The reason why is that the bad girls ruing it for the rest of the good girls. And it doesn't take a lot. It just takes one bad woman to divorce one good guy, and that good guy is off the market for good. I have PHENOMENAL, WONDERFUL, LOVELY women in my life who would make a great wife for any guy willing to get to know them. They ARE the ones who want to make a man happy. They'll cook, they'll clean, they'll not only dress sexy, but stay sexy because they WANT THEIR MAN TO BE HAPPY. They are the ones who not only claim to be independent, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT working REAL JOBS, producing REAL WEALTH. They want REAL MEN and when they vote, they think. They think not just for themselves, but are actually good, educated and informed stewards of democracy, thinking of society as a whole. The LAST thing they want is what feminists to them they should want. They want to be happy. Matter of fact, feminists HATE them and would call them "female Uncle Toms," but that is because they are jealous that my friends have better lives and are happier than these feminists could ever be.

However, sadly they are all in their 30's and 40's. And by that time the men who are left are either;

1. Confirmed bachelors
2. Divorced men who have no incentive to go back
3. Jerks and #%%holes that they don't want to date.
4. Desperate effeminate men that had too much single mother upbringing or too much brainwashing in the schools and frankly don't turn them on.

Did they do anything to deserve this?

No.

Did they sling a single arrow at the boys on the battlefield?

No.

But they are the ones paying the price for their fellow "feminists" sisters" assault on boys/men.

So ladies, or rather should I say "girls" because it's too late for the ladies, you have a choice.

You're either with us or against us. If you're with us we can ALL enjoy great lives which is what I really think we were programmed to do. We can enjoy each others company. We can go out on dates. We can get married and raise families. We could just jet set around the world getting drunk, eating good food and having great hot monkey greasy sex. We can work, we can play, we can HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN A MUTUAL BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP.

However, if you want to be unnatural, if you want to fight your biological drives and subscribe to feminism and make yourselves men. If you want to be childish. If you want drama and chaos and put attention above meaningful relationships. If you want to ruin it for other girls by destroying men through mind games and psychological "drauma." If you want to "dominate" over men or make them pay for some injustice at the age of 14 that they were completely incapable of doing, or if you just want to toy with the hearts and minds of men and boys, go right ahead and declare war. Because in the end, you won't win the battle of the sexes. And it won't be because men will ultimately counterattack and "win this round."

We'll just forfeit the battle

and in doing so win the war.

ht to Dr. Helen for the inspiration for this post.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow.

Enjoying the F'n D.e.c.l.i.n.e

Marvin the Martian said...

How much Rumpelminze have you had tonight? ;-) You took much longer to convey the usual message.

True, women don't behave well until after they reach 30. Many men never behave well. But I think if men were quick studies, they would learn in their teens and twenties that they need to be happy being alone. That's really the only way a man can expect to find a mate: learn to be happy alone, and then BE alone, without complaint, until such time as a woman notices that the man is comfortable and confident by himself, and decides to join him. If no women "grow up" and notice him, then he hasn't lost anything, because he's happy being alone.
Really, men should appreciate the stupidity and abuse they receive from women when men are young. It SHOULD be teaching the men that women simply aren't worth the trouble.

Traveller said...

Nice piece, I liked these drawings, the womens' cannons were a bit phallic LOL.

An important piece of the puzzle is noticing women have the government to provide for them through males' taxes. This is a menace for Bachelorland, much more than you quickly said.

Second, with our extorted money they are free to follow their impulses and go after the worse elements of the society: "chicks dig jerks".

That's because nice guys are rejected. That niceness conditioning is the most difficult task to deprogram in men; how, it is studied by the (in)famous "Game" pratice.

Another conditioning to remove is the moral imperative to be useful for society, of course valid only for the male part of the population (women are exempted just becuase they have the uterus, no matter they are horrid wives and mothers). With the economic and social situation, this is far easier.

Glenfilthie said...

I dunno. I am an old fart by your standards Captain, and I noticed the same stuff you talk about now - 15 years ago. This is nothing new.

I notice that both men and women are growing up much slower these days too. As a result they have childish relationships. Hell, growing up is an option these days, one that most social and financial liberals have passed on.


You stay the course, Captain. Be a good man - not the metrosexual/homosexual/emo flimp that passes for that today. Take your cheap shots, and shrug them off. It's all a question of attitude.

We are MEN. We WILL have good jobs and meaningful careers - the menopausal harridan or the bubblegumming blonde bimbo in HR be damned. We WILL have good marriages and relationships in the sack and out - the social liberals be damned. We will meet our expectations or fail but we will never blame others and give up - we will re-evaluate and try again.

Keep your stick on the ice fellas. Be prepared to forgive women for their foolishness when the time comes.

Anonymous said...

Probably because by 30 men can separate the strictly sexual attraction from the "she's interesting, even when I'm not actively trying to ".

I know a few nice guys ( smart, good jobs, decent looking, etc...) who married women who, at first you wondered why they'd "settle" for, -not being as pretty as their past girlfriends-.

Turned out they were honest, low maintenance, smart and charming women.

The guys who married the pretty & high maintenance girls are all divorced & bitter and still chasing the "pretty" women.

Anonymous said...

Funny how you say men should be content on being alone. I totally agree even though it's painful for many of them to accept it. But once they do, they are truly free.

Looking back I should consider myself lucky. Being a fat guy in my 20's and 30's, women tended to show me who and what they're really about upfront and without haste. Pretty mean about it too. So I really never dated, just worked.

I just turned 40. Weigh 5"10" and around 175. Fit into 32" Levi's without pain. Think I date now? Women 10 years younger throw those smiles out left and right at me. I give 20 somethings the tingles because at this age I don't give a fuck and tell them like it is. And the one's my age, beaten down and old, man they'd love to get me but I never bite.

Even though your experiences and mine were totally different, funny how we both came to the same conclusions isn't it? At heart and inside, the memories for me of that fat guy are still there. Engrained and instilled from merely being judged not on who I was but what I was. And the same applies today, just reversed of course.

Whether they're young, old, hot, fat, I speak my mind, I make many of them hot and then you know what? I simply just walk away.

Recruit said...

I am 28 and have actually attended a class to learn game. A full week of that stuff. You literally have to learn to think like a different person, but the result is the same. You come to a point where you don't care anymore and the women just come rolling in.

I'm glad people are putting into words what I've been feeling. It's just too painful to deal with mentally some nights. The urge to be productive and find someone to share with and for are crazy at times. Hopefully this all passes and I can move into Bachelorland soon. It looks like a nice place to set up shop.

Paul said...

Well, Cap'n, with any luck I've become involved with one of your phenomenal, wonderful and lovely 40 year old women. I sure had to look far and wide to find her, though. My main concern is actually whether or not I've deprogrammed myself enough to be the Man that she wants in her life, to have and to hold and to enjoy the decline together. All that bullcrap growing up has made me my own worst enemy in that regard.

Anonymous said...

>>>they're rank and file enlisted soldiers[. . . .] There are others, let's call them "officers" who know full well what they were doing

This pretty much describes most partisan orders of battle. I think if you carefully catalogued the Occupy Wall Street morons, you'd find the same basic organization.

>>>Why?

Son, you need to read you some Gramsci. The Hard Left is on a long march through the institutions. It has been for most of this century. The purpose is to systematically destroy all of our institutions and culture, with the goal of eliminating it so that a new utopia will spring up in its place. As Timothy Leary explained about the hippie hair and unkempt beard, "Bad hair and bad manners to fight a bad system." The destruction of marriage, and what looks like an inversion of values - privileging the cheater over the faithful, destroying the family in favor of the single parent home, ridiculing the virgin and lauding the abortionist - is intentional, at least when the "Officers" of the movement do it.

It's not like traditional values were the end-all,be-all. There was a lot of unhappiness tied up in them. But they provided stability and a road map and were built up by centuries of trial and error; they were a least-worst system that worked okay for us. They had to go, naturally, because they stood in the way of all sorts of moronic, can't-work-in-this-world schemes like free love, from each according to his ability, and so forth.

When you look at the social issues dominating the headlines on a given day, if you're wondering what's up with an issue, ask yourself if a workable, traditional institution is under attack. If so, you're looking on the vanguard of the revolution. Naturally, they won't call themselves that. It wouldn't sell very well, which is why the Occupy Wall Street greaseballs are trying to morph themselves into The Other 99% of US and similar names that hide their radicalism.

Anyhow, I've gone way long too, but you needed to know what the script was and you asked how it got this way with men & women. In short, it got this way because this is a desired end state that a lot of radicals worked for over a long time. This is what the "Smashing The Patriarchy" that the leftists talk about, actually looks like. It's not a real end state either, it's just a way station on the way to whatever end state the radicals are trying to reach.

Enjoy the decline; punch a hippie.

Anonymous said...

It's all about reducing the population...

1. Remove CO2 from atmosphere to reduce crop yeilds, induce famine/stavation.

2. Create "battle of the sexes". Eliminate the self dependence that naturally comes from the Paternalistic society. Replace with government... which speeds up the elimination of people by controlling & withholding services. Future generations raised by single moms & government are basically just cattle - easier to control, more useful.

3. Foment chaos around the globe. Hope for more wars to reduce population.

etc.

It all started with Genesis. Eve started thinking she knew what was better for others ("she ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"). We've all suffered for it since. Then, things really got going about the time of the French revolution. Fiat currency is the tool of control and enslavement by the few.

Depopulation and control of whoever is left is the goal.

Anonymous said...

No doubt about it - American women are gawd-awful. I will never forget the gaggle of females American we ran into in Spain in 2008 - without men but paid for by men. We encountered two lots - the college age ones (like Amanda Knox), and the wealthier ones in early middle age. Both would claim to be there for "culture", but in fact it was a shorter word beginning with "c" they were after. I've also visited Penn State several times, and seen the big bouncing blonde female students, acting as they own the world, and the poor hangdog men (the ones who aren't athletes). The poor buggers - they know what is in store for them. Three-legged wallets.

Other Western women are not much better, of course.

Why not marry an oriental woman? She will esteem you as a man, as a father, and as a provider.

If America doesn't succumb to radical Islam (which provides another form of male-female relations)
I expect that the cities will be largely Oriental and the countryside will mostly be Amish.

tacticalchrstn said...

This was the best post ever by the Captain! The only thing to add is the often mentioned female tendency toward hypergamy. You can bet that girls were not slapping and shit testing the captain of the football team. (or maybe they were and that' how he got the captain moniker) Anyway... Girls are the most hypergamous when they are young. Only the hot guys and cool guys that their girlfriend like may apply. As women age and start to get more desperate the shit testing and drama with average guys drops off. The people who need to read this post are young girls. They should be given their grandmother's advice to look for decent and honorable men. Popular culture's message to young women reinforces hypergamy.

Captain Capitalism said...

You'll have to forgive me, but I have not read enough to know what "hypergamy" is?

FSK said...

"Hypergamy" means "Women are always looking to trade up for a better partner, no matter what commitments they made to their current man."

Anonymous said...

Hypergamy is the tendency for women to choose men who's status is above them. And by that, it simply means competing for men who other women want.

BTW, those sketches are the best.

Captain Capitalism said...

I guess you learn something new every day. Is that a REAL word or just a phrase that was created to describe something we're regularly seeing?

tweell said...

It's a real word, been around for over 100 years.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypergamy

Captain Capitalism said...

Wow, just wanted to make sure we weren't "creating" words like feminists and communists do like "white privilage" or "institutional racism" purely to serve our political interests.

Anonymous said...

Liked the article, but I have one nit to pick. The bastard spawn of single mothers and Latino immigrants will not be your slaves, ever. Old white people will still have plenty of votes, but you can't vote young people into good jobs that pay Social Security taxes.

Your savings are an illusion too -- they consist mostly of government debt. When the next generation of fatherless babies becomes unemployable adults, they will default on that debt, and your savings will vanish.

Captain Capitalism said...

Heck forget the offspring of single moms and the offspring of latino immigrants, try any young person, even today. Won't matter where you're from or whether you have a father or not, you just have to be young. If there aren't any jobs, there aren't any jobs. And therefore no contributions to the ss ponzi scheme.

I'm fully aware there will be no ss. But it really is a jobs problem, not a labor problem.

she said: said...

I think women have been angry at men for a very long time. Generations.

They left their children.

Women had to become men. Someone had to take care of the kids. For every welfare queen, there were hundreds of women working multiple jobs. I knew tons of them early in my career. Now of course things have changed. Men have come back around - but that is a lot of damage to repair.

When women see men giving up - I think most of them feel it's typical. You always give up.

At least my perspective on the flip side of growing up in a single parent household.

Does anyone behave well before 30?

Captain Capitalism said...

Men do for a while, until we realize it isn't working. Then some of us stumble through, others double down on the nice guy stuff, and the rest of us become jerks.

And regrettably, us jerks sometimes really hurt a couple innocent nice girls in the process of defending against the other 100.

Anonymous said...

"Giving up."

Poor choice of words Captain, I prefer to call it a 'bait and bleed' operation.

While the PUAs engage in a 'Fabian strategy' against the feminists a 'culminating point' will be reached and the battle will be ours.

Anonymous said...

"Women had to become men."

No they didn't.

Aynsley said...

Oh, Captain. I do enjoy your economic analysis, but posts like this make me want to find the woman(en?) that damaged you so badly and have a word with them on being a decent human being.

Captain Capitalism said...

Ansley my dear, unfortunately it wasn't any "one" woman. It was the hundreds I've dated and the thousands more I had to put up with.

If there were more of you out there, then this post would have never been written. Though, the upshot of this all is you are now a VERY unique and rare woman!

;)

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this heartfelt post. It really reflects how I feel these days.

A sign of how bad things have gotten. We will probably go back to the history times where only 20% of men managed to have offspring as opposed to 80% of women.

Captain Capitalism said...

Eh, "How bad things have gotten?"

I'm starting to realize there is no "bad" nor is there any "good."

It is what it is.

What is important is how you deal with it. Going Ghost/Galt/Enjoying the Decline, etc., is whether you make the best out of it. Though I do have a girlfriend and she is wonderful, I still manage to go out and enjoy life and Bachelorland.

In otherwords, there never WAS any chance of the 1940's style family/wife/life. Now move on and find out what the ideal life today can be.

Aynsley said...

I know lots of nice girls. Unfortunately, most of them get snapped up quickly, and those of us that are left aren't terribly successful at dating, so it leaves the pool of datable women populated by, it would seem, the women you've had such wonderful experiences with.

Anonymous said...

The best revenge is for a man to be successful, physically fit, and interesting.

And then not date.

As women begin to realize the damage they've caused, watching a good man go to waste will just bring it home to them.

The kind of guy they used to reject, they now want to date/marry. And he is now unavailable to her or anyone.

They had their chance but were too interested in sport-fcking "attractive" a-holes.

Too bad, so sad.

Anonymous said...

Quote:

"I think women have been angry at men for a very long time. Generations.

They left their children.

Women had to become men. Someone had to take care of the kids. For every welfare queen, there were hundreds of women working multiple jobs. I knew tons of them early in my career. Now of course things have changed. Men have come back around - but that is a lot of damage to repair.

When women see men giving up - I think most of them feel it's typical. You always give up.

At least my perspective on the flip side of growing up in a single parent household.

Does anyone behave well before 30?"

Notice the shaming language. This is the typical weapon of feminazis and their soldiers.

Once you realise what you're reading, the effect is zero.

"When women see men giving up - I think most of them feel it's typical. You always give up".

Yep. I give up. And what-the-f*ck are you going to do about it, Cupcake?

Did the men fighting in Normandy give up? No. Why did they not give up? Because they thought they had something to fight for - their country - their women, their unborn children.

What do men have to fight for now?

Nothing. Squat.

So, the gates to Bachelorland need to be widened and it appears you women are going to be up sh*t creek in a barbed-wire canoe without a paddle.

Women in western society are the ones who should be quaking in their boots, as the social and demographic changes on the horizon are going to hit very, very hard against females and their children.

Men can live on very, very little and still be happy.

xsplat said...

A very readable and engaging post.

I had expected that you would have come across the term hypergamy, as it's used a lot on men's game blogs. I must then assume that you are not aware of how much a dominant masculine frame can lessen and even stop the "shit tests" that happen on the battlefield that you talk about.

It's possible to win the battle of the sexes and dominate a woman and teach her to be feminine, faithful, and doting.

But it takes a wholesale personality change on the part of the man, and a very refined and practiced skill set. It takes the man doing his job.

You can learn to do it.

Anonymous said...

Captain,

Check out 'The Misandry Bubble' from The Futurist.

It sums it all up in one place.

Ping Jockey said...

The phenomenon where today's bitch-women suddenly "find themselves" and become born-again humans once they hit their 30's, start losing their looks, their sex appeal fades, and they are FORCED to live on their humanity alone is nothing short of amazing.

"...I have PHENOMENAL, WONDERFUL, LOVELY women in my life who would make a great wife for any guy willing to get to know them."

I'm curious -- have they EVER said word one to any feminasties when they start bashing men? Or have they ever said to any feminazi, "shut up, you DON'T speak for me"? Or have they ever said ANYTHING in public against the unjust divorce or DV laws, VAWA, or Family Courts? Or anything else to combat society's institutional misandry?
If not, their silence is their assent. They're feminists. all right -- but they're wolves in sheep's clothing, waiting for the right time to strike.

'NAWALT' does NOT exist -- ALL Modern Womyn are feminists until proven otherwise, if ever. In modern society, for a man to consider them as anything else is to foolishly court disaster.

Anonymous said...

You may have missed the greatest video of all time covering this: http://goo.gl/f4pXo

Anonymous said...

The answer to WHY can be found here: http://goo.gl/obiC

Anonymous said...

"The best revenge is for a man to be successful, physically fit, and interesting. And then not date. As women begin to realize the damage they've caused, watching a good man go to waste will just bring it home to them."

This. I now have several women in my life badgering me to date and marry someone because "Women need good guys like you."

Oh so NOW you tell me. They could have had me for over a decade, but noooo, they had to chase the unattainable playboys and abusive thugs.

Also note the fact that women are completely thinking of me as a resource. They're looking at me like an energy company looking at a field of natural gas. "Hmmm! We could put that to good use at Vagina Incorporated!"

Forget about it. I'm done with all of you. Too bad so sad, now go die alone and enjoy the cats.

Aynsley said...

So, Ping Jockey, you're the masculine counterpart to the women described in this post?

Anonymous said...

For those who do not want to fight the war; find the cease fire zone social activities. Fall in love with that really cool, intelligent (in my case because I am female) guy. Seek out the "survivor colony" to live in - among like minded battle of the sexes pacifists type people.

The tricky part for us is defending the colony (and our children) from war hawks. Think do gooder politicians, social workers, teachers, etc. who are desperate to find survivors of the war and "rescue" us.

While you enjoy the decline, my Husband will be encouraging my children to marry young in order to opt out of the war. As the parents, we spend a large amount of time showing our children how to be battle of the sexes peace activists.

Feminism never took hold in many places, and a lot of people are not "true believers". They simply parrot the war time propaganda to avoid the secret police...

Warren Zoell said...

Have you seen this?
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/10/12/vancouver-restaurant-bans-men-from-peeing-standing-up/

Warren Zoell said...

There's an update
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tempest+toilet+over+Vancouver+restaurant+peeing+standing/5539858/story.html

They said it was a joke but somehow I don't think so.

Renee said...

Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but I wanted to put in my 2 cents.

I can't help but think that the women and girls you described aren't representative of all females. I know, I know, I'm sure you've heard of the "not all women are like that" arguement. But at the same time I'm reminded of how when a female complains about the lack of quality men, guys always say that she's only focusing on a small portion and ignoring other potential men.

Maybe you were attracted to a certain type of female. Maybe the hotter they look, less pleasant they may be. It can't be that the majority of females are that cruel.

And no, I'm not saying that there aren't issues between the sexes. There are.

Sex anyone? Is it not enjoyable? Why "hold out?" Why attach strings to it? What evil possesses you to use it as a bargaining chip whether you're married or not? And dare I suggest using sex to extract resources is the definition of prostitution? Or is that cutting it too close to the truth?

I agree that sex shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip or lack of sex being used as punishment. But what about waiting until you find the right one? Perhaps that didn't apply with the point above.

Captain Capitalism said...

Hello Renee,

Your "NAWALT" argument (that's what they call it) has a logical merit to it. But that is about it. A statistical percentage of women do not share all traits.

but your argument also includes the typical "where are you going to find these girls" or "there's something wrong with what you're doing" type tempalte that every guy has heard from their female friends and mothers in their 20's.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple because men have and do "change" their tactics over the years and you get the same results. The counter argument is simply to ask you;

"How many women have you dated?"

Because I'm well over 200, and this makes me more experienced with "knowing women" than the average woman (simply by the fact most women don't date women).

In short, what I describe above IS the majority of women. And millions of mens' dating experiences will confirm it.

Aynsley said...

At risk of being obnoxious, Captain, would you care to estimate the average attractiveness of the over 200 women that you have dated?

Captain Capitalism said...

The bell distribution curve is pretty wide (or so my friends say). But on average I would have to intellectually say about an 8-8.5.

Keep in mind (and not to brag) I was one of the best salsa and swing dancers in the state, I do work out, keep in shape, knew game/alpha stuff by the age of 25. I have dated Timberwolves and Vikings cheerleaders (albeit briefly), but have also dated nerdy IT chicks that weren't the best looking, but didn't destroy brain cells with mindless blather and we pleasant to be around.

Aynsley said...

That was kind of my point. Power corrupts, and pretty is power, when it comes to women. The more men that are willing to tolerate outrageous behavior, the more outrageous the behavior will become.

It's not true in all cases, of course, but the women who rarely have a man offer to buy them a drink almost never throw the drink in the guy's face.

Anonymous said...

Man, this article is right on point.

I have to partially disagree with the "pretty is power" idea though. Yes, looks can be "power" but nobody should think that the behavior this article is about only applies to pretty women. I've dated above average, average and below average looking women and this behavior is present in most, whether they are pretty or not.

True, looks may exaggerate the problem but the cause is not prettiness, it's in the chase, and this is where I think CC is going with the article. Men chase, so many women behave as if there is an automatic assumption that they are worth more than men. Pretty women just get chased more, hence a greater assumption. When men stop chasing then the power base goes away, men retain their power (personal power, I'm not talking financial although this applies too). This is why MGTOWs don't look back because the see how much they've truly empowered themselves and relationships simply diminish that self-empowerment.

P Ray said...

Aynsley:
"That was kind of my point. Power corrupts, and pretty is power, when it comes to women. The more men that are willing to tolerate outrageous behavior, the more outrageous the behavior will become."

Doesn't that mean that the girls who are mean to decent men ...
are pretty f'n stupid?
Think about it: Treat a guy with DECENCY ... NOT asking to be treated as a KING ...
and you find someone who's loyal to you for life.

But no ...
got to screw it all up by being a user, radical feminist or "Let's just be friends".

Aynsley said...

I'll take it one step further: Teenagers are pretty f'n stupid. Society makes little to no effort to teach attractive young women better manners, because it's "cute".

And if a girl has 15 or so boys fawning over her, how else can she narrow down the field?

Not to sound like a behaviorist, but if you don't teach them, how do you expect them to learn?

R4M said...

I'm a racist, so I had three sons with genetically high-value women who have since succumbed mentally to the psycho-propasphere. To say they have gone after my assets and reputation with the tenacity of a junkyard dog is an understatement.

I'm now in the process of getting custody and being 'bankrupt on paper'. I'm figuring on retiring to 'bachelor land' with my boys. I've hired a cleaning 'lady', a nanny and call prozzies when I feel like it. 20 somethings aren't too difficult either.

As they say: 'living well is the best revenge'.

Anonymous said...

It's all so sad really. I've sensed that mindset in some of the men I date (& I screen very well or try to). They will tell me they want a relationship, when really, they just want to get laid for a while til they return to their aloneness and "man cave" of a life...Leaving politics out of it for now I would simply ask the Captain if he's ever been in love. Or if has, why does he no longer desire it? 'Cause love/acceptance/cuddling at night is pretty grand. I date mostly for weekend companionship (wherein I can give some of all this love I feel)& sex. Period.That said, I no longer look for anything "Hollywood" or super romantic myself. Been there, done that.Don't really miss it all that much.In any case, it's in short supply,the male romantic attitude anyway,due to all the factors you name.I understand bitterness.Re the opposite sex (3 long yrs. of online dating)I am nearly there myself.But in the end I always find men who have heart, who care about me,it's just often a timing issue getting together.Busy lives, children, etc.Always something. But I can't give up & it's not a biological imperative so much as Saturday nights/Sunday I'd rather not be alone.Not every weekend anyway...So it's a tradeoff.& some people are relationship people & you can't change your basic hardwiring I think.& I AM that very pretty/sexy woman well over 40 who cares,who doesn't nag or play games,who is super open, loving, not manipulative,who is independent,building her own wealth,debt-free except for my house(which I own).I'm this way (still trying to love others, men!)'cause of my spiritual path actually, as I try to please God (outdated concept I know)....So I am hotly pursued, which is nice.I'm often viewed as a commodity tho.Still, I have to wade thru quite a lot of as*holes to find decent companions,so I can relate to this blog rant.I think what has happened is men don't approach dating logically,as the numbers game it is, but are mired in the past, permanently scarred by past disappointments.Though women are more resilent emotionally in my experience (and usually much braver emotionally than men), many women can't seem to get past past hurts either. So these people end up re-playing the past by punishing whoever is finally in front of them.The only way to find love or AT LEAST weekend companions worthy of your heart is to persevere,NOT give up hope. 'Cause we are here for love. Love and happiness are important and constitute the entire significance of creation (Meher Baba)......Also, when you aren't hotly pursued because of looks, income, attitude men tend to blame the opposite sex.Dating is brutal that way (highly, highly competitive and don't get me started on ageism which men are more prone to than women. Much more prone actually).As a result, too many women my age have given up also so that they will only pursue men with the best resumes/profiles/looks/vibe (5-10% of men, tops, in my experience). The plainer ones (women) soon drop out of dating altogether....

The prevailing (though not only) attitude after age 40 is "men aren't worth the bother mostly so if I can't date an attractive alpha then I'll be alone"....sad. So Captain! women feel the exact same way as men. We are often no different. And it's not feminism to blame, just hopelessness....

So here we all are- very much alone and likely to remain so. And what is worse,justifying it all based on past experience and emotion only 'cause it would be too painful to do much real self-analysis, introspection. Men would rather watch ESPN any day than do even five minutes of the latter.

PS frequent! frequent evanmarckatz.com for how women think and read Louann Brizendine's best selling books on the male and female brains. We ARE our hormones, in short. Love to all, and please stop being bitter guys!!!(we- women- need you, we do)....

Anonymous said...

Earlier, a previous commenter made an excellent point about the importance of learning to be happy by yourself, whether you ultimately choose to ever date again or not. But it occurs to me that some may benefit from a more explicit definition that operationalizes the concept, that is, defines it in terms of how rather than merely what. If that sounds like you then you may wish to read "Feeling Good" by Dr. David Burns. While it is intended for people who still wish to date, the insights are just as valid whether you choose to ever date or not. Burns’ other book "Feeling Good" also exposes the interesting scientific results from “bibiotherapy,” (yes, it’s a real word), the practice of simply reading the latter book as being just as effective as antidepressant drugs for depression, yet with none of the conspicuous side effects. However, if you find Burns’ later suggested exercises too time consuming and/or tedious, you may find Eckhart Tolle's books, and in particular his "The Power of Now," at least as effective and vastly more efficient, not to mention other books on mindfulness such as "The Willpower Instinct" that are remarkably helpful in the establishment of good habits, as well as reducing bad habits and addictions. And yes, sometimes that means an addictive relationship, or addictive notions about the necessities of life and living along with the distinction between the two. And as that aforementioned earlier commenter also observed, Burns wholly concurs as well; once you are truly able to enjoy being happy by yourself, the likelihood that you may meet someone healthier will improve significantly, but even if you never choose to date again it won’t matter, because you will be a winner either way. Your present and future happiness will be ensured because you will no longer base it on something outside yourself, with your former so-called “happiness” ever at the mercy of something or someone. If any of this proves to be the help you sought all along but didn’t realize at the time, I encourage you to pass it along to at least one other who you care about and suggest that they do likewise if it proves of help to them as well. Who knows? It may just be the beginning of the end for this particular affliction of the heart and mind that has plagued humankind for far too long.

KM