Avoiding Girlington

Dr. Helen Smith is interviewed by Forbes concerning declining male college enrollment:

Jerry: “You mentioned a number of institutions in which men feel uncomfortable – no, it’s actually not a matter of feeling uncomfortable, it’s a matter of actually being disadvantaged. There’s one you haven’t mentioned yet which is something that overlaps with an interest of mine and of your husband’s, Glenn Reynolds: the idea of a college bubble, the idea of a higher education system in which the value of the product has been become completely dissociated from the price of it. Talk to me a little bit about – what do you call it, Girltown or Girlingtown? – the universities as sort of a world hostile to men.”

Helen: “Right. I call it Girlington [in the book] and that’s sort of like Burlington. There’s so many women at the University of Vermont they call the place Girlington as opposed to Burlington. What’s interesting is that it’s something like 60% women going to college and 40% men, and I think you’re right. I don’t think that it’s just the higher education bubble – I know that my husband Glenn Reynolds is interested in that and actually has a new book called The New School coming out about that very topic – but I think that actually what’s happening is that not only is the [college] commodity much less desirable to men but I think that the environment itself is actively hostile towards men. So I think you’ve got two things going on there: you’ve got a commodity college which isn’t to men as important as it used to be, and there are other things that men are finding to do; and at the same time I think that the discrimination against men in these diversity-field, women-dominated schools is also acting as a kind of barrier to men. A lot of men don’t want to put up with it and a lot of people think, “Of course that’s not really happening,” but people have no idea what men face in our colleges today.

People simply have to stop thinking about college in terms of when they went to school. It is an entirely different cost/benefit structure than it was 20 or 40 years ago, and must be considered from the value proposition it offers now as opposed to what it offered then. And if one considers the lower quality education, the reduced value of the degree, the vastly inflated costs, and the anti-male discrimination, it is a dubious prospect indeed for most men.

There are other ways to punch the college degree ticket. Look into them.

A portrait in professional responsibility

Roosh rightly takes Tuthmosis to task for his poorly conceived and insufficiently researched article concerning his assertion that short-haired women are damaged:

After prolonged and vigorous deep thought, I have come to the following conclusion: Tuthmosis has understated how utterly damaged short-haired women are. Run, run far away from them.

Don’t believe me? Look at the live Twitter response feed. Tuthmosis may have been too nice. To make yourself ugly, and then try to convince the world that you’re in fact beautiful, or that you don’t need a man to find you attractive at all, is so delusional that the ROK executive team is currently reaching out to the best mental health professionals in Moldova so that these women can get the help that they desperately need. (At the same time, I have since held a private meeting in the ROK office with Tuthmosis to encourage him to not write with such a polite filter that makes him hesitant to offend the female sex.)

I, for one, certainly hope that Tuthmosis will henceforth cease to affect such a shy and nonconfrontational style. The lad has promise, but he simply has to learn how to come right out and say what he truly thinks.

Women revel in ruin

This celebration of the shattering of a millennial-old tradition is sickening:

One of Britain's most ancient cathedrals will put an end to more than a thousand years of all-male tradition today, when a girls' choir is due to make its debut. Canterbury Cathedral has had various forms of sung worship since it was founded towards the end of the Dark Ages, back in the sixth century.

But the singers have always been male.

All that will change when the voices of 16 schoolgirls will soar towards the cathedral's vaulted ceiling on Saturday.

I wouldn't care if there was a convent with a thousand-year tradition of only permitting female singers, I would strongly support continuing that tradition instead of making it like every other American Legion hall and elementary school. But women, with their instinctive desire to ruin absolutely everything, aren't content until they have reduced everything that is uniquely male to the lowest common sexual denominator.

Traditions are valuable and worthy of respect in their own right. Hence the term "time-honored" traditions. But the Female Imperative honors nothing except itself and knows no respect for anything, least of all tradition. That's why it must be ruthlessly stamped out by anyone attempting to build anything capable of lasting.

What is the good that was accomplished by ruining the male-only tradition of Canterbury Cathedral? Did it send a Very Important Message that girls are capable of singing? They may as well have held a Britney Spears concert there and closed up shop. It wasn't "another sign of change in an institution", it was a sign of the collapse of an institution.

3x sluttier than grandma

Cry about it or celebrate it, but the increasing sexual incontinence of young women is the reality with which young men have to deal today, both in the UK and elsewhere:

Almost one in 10 of those asked said that they had had slept with more than 10 lovers by the age of 24. The average was 5.65 people.

By contrast, women of their mother’s generation, who were in their early twenties in the 1980s, had had an average of 3.72 sexual partners by the same age.And the previous generation were even less promiscuous.Women of their grandmother’s generation, aged 24 in the 1960s, averaged just 1.67 partners.

It's not so much the average as the standard deviations that would show where the serious problem is. Remember, the risk of marital failure goes up considerably at 2+ previous lovers. So, whereas the average woman was in the reasonable risk category two generations ago, not only is the average woman now well outside that range, but at this rate, the average will reach the nuclear "very low chance of marital success" range in another two generations.

This should also serve to successfully address the atheist demand to prove that declining religious observance is a reliable indicator of declining moral standards.

Cane Caldo is not Chesterton

Neither am I, for that matter, but I thought it was important to point out that Cane Caldo's post, entitled Vox vs Chesterton, is really not an accurate characterization.

It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.

Vox Day: "A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."

So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.

Who said anything about "success in the world" or "worldly success"? Cane Caldo is playing exactly the same game as Peter Boghossian and other atheist apologists who redefine faith in order to attack Christian faith. And in the process of doing so, he's made the same mistake as Karl Marx did with the labor theory of value. Success is not objective. It may be worldly or it may be spiritual. Success is subjective. It is defined by the one who seeks it. In the case of Game, it is literally in the eye of the beholder.

If you want to be rich, imitate the self-made wealthy naturals. If you want to date beautiful women, imitate the natural players. If you want a healthy marriage, imitate the happily married.

I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear....

Which is fine, but Cane is committing a simple category error here. Chesterton may have stated the foolishness of calling success good, but I simply haven't done that. I mentioned success. Cane is the one who called it good in order to attack it. Now, I do think that knowledge of Game is good because I think that Game is true. And if it is true, then it behooves the Christian man to know it, so that his actions are in accord with reality rather than with indoctrination to which he has been subjected.

Why women lean left

The Chateau contemplates why women lean so reliably leftward:

the liberalism of women is as much a consequence of their reliance on government serving as husband substitute as of their inherently greater sensitivity to perceived inequality or rifts in community cohesion. This theory gains traction by the evidence that married women become less liberal, ostensibly because their provider needs are being met by a real husband and the government has assumed the role of a malevolent outsider ransacking their intact family for tax money to be distributed to other women and their children.

This is one reason why the 19th Amendment was such a societally destructive mistake. The decision of the Founding Fathers to keep women out of the electorate was no more a coincidence than their decision to not extend the franchise to all French and British citizens or Benito Mussolini's decision to make the political empowerment of women the very first plank in the Fascist program.

Like it or not, increased female involvement in the governing process is inextricably linked to more intrusive and authoritarian government. If you oppose the latter, you have absolutely no choice but to oppose the former.

Betraying the Sisterhood

Lest you doubt that women are ruthlessly intrasexually competitive, notice how this woman admits that she is attacked by her so-called friends for the crime of attempting to appeal to her boyfriend's preferences.

The heinous crime I had confessed to? Not an affair, or neglecting my children — but simply dressing to please my boyfriend, Richard. I’d admitted to Sara that, at the age of 55, I have grown my short hair and swapped jeans and sweaters for skirts and dresses, purely and simply to please the man in my life. But rather than applauding my decision to put so much effort into improving my appearance — and thus my relationship — Sara and my other friends are treating me as a pariah. According to them, I have betrayed the sisterhood.

The problem is that even though she's well post-Wall, she's trying harder and she's realizing the benefits of her efforts. Notice that she even wonders if making a similar effort might have made a difference in her failed marriage. How is she betraying the Sisterhood? She's upping the ante, thereby forcing them to admit to themselves that they are slovenly, short-haired shoggoths by choice, that they aren't forcibly sentenced to a life devoid of male attention.

We've already seen signs of this in the reaction of some women to previous posts observing that short hair on women is unattractive, even a red flag. But the fact is that women who dress for other women should not be surprised when they consistently lose out to women who dress for the man in their life.

It's easy to distinguish a woman who dresses for other women versus a woman who dresses for her man. A woman who dresses for other women will talk about what is classy, what is in fashion, what is stylish and what is not. She will always has some plausible excuse for not wearing what her man prefers her to wear. Dolly Parton is the perfect example of the other extreme. She's got big blond hair, big breasts, she hasn't changed her style in decades and she makes it clear that she doesn't give a damn what any other woman on the planet has to say about it. It shouldn't be surprising to learn that she's been happily married for 47 years.