Complaining Is Not Enough.

Welcome to my blog. Its purpose is to explore various topics regarding sex, marriage and family — an area with many problems today, as has been amply explored by the “red pill community.” They have done an excellent job of analysis and description. But, little has been said about solutions, and this persistent lack has been troubling me, so I will take it up. I tried doing a little bit via YouTube, the preferred medium these days it seems, but I am not suited to it. So, I will join with Dalrock, Rollo Tomassi and others in print. Like Dalrock, I am happily married, for seventeen years, and have a son. (Yes, it really is “happily,” perhaps because my wife is Japanese, and her English even now is bad enough that she is isolated from Western media and the society of Western women.) Perhaps I would like to have my son, when he is older, to have some kind of woman available besides wasted harlots.
In general, I am a Traditionalist. This is different than today’s TradCons, which Dalrock (among many) have rightly eviscerated. But one thing you can say about Traditional solutions is that they have actually worked, in real life, for a long period of time, and produced good results. You could invent some kind of new solution, but Utopian dreams sometimes don’t work out. I am not a Christian, although I find that they are my natural allies, so I am Christian-friendly. Ezra Pound once did a broad review of spiritual traditions, including many in the East. He eventually decided to become a Christian (specifically, an Anglican), not because he was not aware of the many failings of the Anglican Church in his day, but because he realized that, if he wanted to gain the advantages that come from cooperation with like-minded people, he would have to join some kind of existing community.
I say often that “you have to tell women what to do.” They seem to be incapable of organizing their actions without external leadership. This leadership may come in the form of individual vision, or it may come in the form of social norms, in-group behavior, and the artificially-created “social norms” and “in-group behavior” manufactured by the Cultural Marxists in music, television and movies. Women have a choice of which leadership they choose. But, they seem to lack the masculine capability of analysis and description, awareness of longer-term cause and effect, and also based on this, invention of definite solutions, independent of existing norms. Without someone else to do these things, who they can follow, they are rudderless. Some women are quite intelligent, but this ability is usually channeled entirely toward the Rationalization Hamster, and also lies, manipulation, and deceit. (This is basically the Rationalization Hamster applied to others.) But along with this, women are open to suggestion. If some men start telling women what to do, and it seems to them an attractive proposition, some women will follow.
And so, although you can lament the present condition of women in the U.S. and the West today, unless you tell them what to do, they will not change. It is not enough to say “I don’t like this and I don’t like that.” Eliminating options and identifying problems are important steps toward figuring out What To Do, but do not create a solution in themselves. Along with this, men have to clarify what they want. Today, we lament the fact that most women today are unfit to be wives and mothers, and are frankly dangerous and destructive in those roles. And yet, we seem to like having a large supply of sluts on ready call, so we have been perhaps a little hesitant to say: don’t be sluts. Obviously, we are going to have to make some decisions here. Are you ready for a world in which women are sexually unavailable until after your wedding day?
Unfortunately, by focusing on analysis and description of present conditions, men are, in a way, telling women what to do. Men say that “all women are like that.” Women hear this, and, following what they are being told by men, as is their nature, behave in the manner that such men say they behave. While it is true that women certainly have the potential to be “like that,” and today that potential is reality, it is also true that, in the past, they were not like that. Just as there is “women’s nature,” there is also “men’s nature.” For example, men have the potential for domination and plunder, that we see in every gang or group of bandits, and which anthropologists have recorded in primitive human societies around the world. And yet, most men today are not like that. The difference is part of what we call: civilization.
Thus, I want to focus on concrete, specific solutions. For example, there is near-universal agreement that today’s laws regarding divorce, sexual assault, domestic violence and other interactions between men and women are grossly anti-male and dysfunctional today. But, you rarely hear anyone say what, then, the laws should be. If you were to change it, what would you do? In the past (before 1970), for example, divorce required either mutual consent and terms acceptable to both parties, or, for a unilateral divorce, abridgement of certain conditions, notably adultery or serious domestic violence, with evidence that would hold up in jury trial. In another example from history, divorce among the ancient Romans would result in the man keeping the children. This served as a double preventative: most women would avoid divorce if it meant being separated from her children; and also, a man looking for a younger, sexier wife would probably be handicapped by having custody of his children. This would naturally require someone to handle childcare; and what better (or cheaper) person than the children’s natural mother? At the same time, a younger, sexier women would probably not be very interested in caring for another woman’s offspring.
Besides not telling women what to do, men today are bizarrely, pathologically politically inactive. Men need to join together and get things done to change the laws, just as men have always done to produce any change. Look around you: who is going to do it, if not men? At the very least, men should support existing men’s rights organizations. It is true that they have been woefully ineffective. But, more money would probably help fix that. Any man who is unwilling to give $25 to an existing MRA organization deserves everything he gets. This is evidence of extreme learned helplessness. Think of it like doing political pushups. If you can’t do even one pushup, you are in bad shape my friend. Get over your learned helplessness. Give another $25 to the YouTube Redpill personality of your choice. Divorce law is State law, so eventually there will have to be an MRA organization for each state, which lobbies and informs State legislators: the Ohio Society for Men’s Rights. If all concerned men were giving $100 a year in total to the cause, there would be enough money around that other men would have the funding to establish such organizations. Unfortunately, most men cannot risk too much opprobrium, as it jeopardizes their livelihoods. Thus, we need specialists, whose livelihood is itself based on objecting to the status quo, and who can serve as professional lightning rods.
Men are the builders of civilization, not only in steel and concrete, but also in laws and principles. Women nurture the creations of the men of their choice. So: start building.

The Discontented Woman (1896)

We today tend to ascribe our sorry state of affairs to the feminist movement of the 1960s. But, the poisons of feminism have been around a lot longer than that. Today’s essay is The Discontented Woman, written in 1896 by Amelia Edith Huddleston Barr. An online source is here. But, I am going to put the whole thing here, because it is worth reading. This was the first round of modern feminism, which resulted in the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote in 1919. This was related, I think, to what we have talked about in terms of “dating,” which was related to women leaving their father’s home and making a living in the cities while single. Before then, a woman was rarely not part of a household — either her father’s, or her husband’s. The household was considered the voting unit, and the man was the representative of the household. But, it goes farther back than that. Already by the 1850s there was a lot of talk about “eliminating marriage and family,” which was related — just as it is today — with Marxism. The Marxist ideal is for all adults to be interchangeable serfs in service to the State, and actually, in service to those that run the State. There is no family, no mothers, and no fathers. Children are transferred to the State soon after birth, and raised by the State. Today, this is “pre-K” and soon, “state daycare,” which has already been preceded by “HeadStart” and “Early HeadStart” beginning at age 2. Consequently, there are no brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts or cousins either. When you get too old to work, you just disappear one afternoon, like they used to do to horses, and nobody cares because you have no family. One day, your apartment is vacated, and your next-door neighbor shrugs and goes to work.

As the essay states, this “discontent” is irrational. There is no better plan. Women can have careers, but they cannot then be effective mothers, and perhaps, not mothers at all. After fifty years of experiments, there is no clear success. Most women don’t have careers. They only have jobs — and these jobs are inevitably more exhausting and less rewarding than being mistress of your own house and spending time with your own children. But, women are not rational enough to figure all this out, not even after three generations of real-world failure. They are easily conned.


Discontent is a vice six thousand years old, and it will be eternal; because it is in the race. Every human being has a complaining side, but discontent is bound up in the heart of woman; it is her original sin. For if the first woman had been satisfied with her conditions, if she had not aspired to be ” as gods,” and hankered after unlawful knowledge, Satan would hardly have thought it worth his while to discuss her rights and wrongs with her. That unhappy controversy has never ceased; and, with or without reason,woman has been perpetually subject to discontent with her conditions and, according to her nature, has been moved by its influence. Some, it has made peevish, some plaintive, some ambitious, some reckless, while a noble majority have found in its very control that serene composure and cheerfulness which is granted to those who conquer, rather than to those who inherit.

But with all its variations of influence and activity there has never been a time in the world’s history, when female discontent has assumed so much, and demanded so much, as at the present day; and both the satisfied and the dissatisfied woman may well
pause to consider, whether the fierce fever of unrest which has possessed so large a number of the sex is not rather a delirium than a conviction; whether indeed they are not just as foolishly impatient to get out of their Eden, as was the woman Eve six
thousand years ago.

We may premise, in order to clear the way, that there is a noble discontent which has a great work to do in the world; a discontent which is the antidote to conceit and self-satisfaction, and which urges the worker of every kind continually to realize a higher ideal. Springing from Eegret and Desire, between these two sighs, all horizons lift ; and the very passion of its longing gives to those who feel this divine discontent the power to overleap whatever separates them from their iiope and their aspiration.

Having acknowledged so much in favor of discontent, we may now consider some of the most objectionable forms in which it has attacked certain women of our own generation. In the van of these malcontents are the women dissatisfied with their home duties. One of the saddest domestic features of the day is the disrepute into which housekeeping has fallen ; for that is a woman’s first natural duty and answers to the needs of her best
nature. It is by no means necessary that she should be a Cinderella among the ashes, or a Nausicaa washing linen, or a Penelope for ever at her needle, but all women of intelligence now understand that good cooking is a liberal science, and that there is a most intimate connection between food and virtue, and food and health, and food and thought. Indeed, many things are called crimes that are not as bad as the savagery of an Irish cook or the messes of a fourth-rate confectioner.

It must be noted that this revolt of certain women against housekeeping is not a revolt against their husbands ; it is simply a revolt against their duties. They consider house- work hard and monotonous and inferior, and confess with a cynical frankness that they prefer to engross paper, or dabble in art, or embroider pillow-shams, or sell goods, or in some way make money to pay servants who will cook their husband’s dinner and
nurse their babies for them. And they believe that in this way they show themselves to have superior minds, and ask credit for a deed which ought to cover them with shame. For actions speak louder than words, and what does such action say ? In the first place, it asserts that any stranger — even a young uneducated peasant girl hired for a few dollars a month — is able to perform the duties of the house-mistress and the mother. In the second place, it substitutes a poor ambition for love, and hand service for heart service. In toe third place, it is a visible abasement of the loftiest duties of womanhood to the capacity of the lowest paid service. A wife and mother can not thus absolve her
own soul; she simply disgraces and traduces her holiest work.

Suppose even that housekeeping is hard and monotonous, it is not more so than men’s work in the city. The first lesson a business man has to learn is to do pleasantly what he does not like to do. All regular useful work must be monof-onous, but love ought to make it easy ; and at any rate, the tedium of housework is not any greater than the tedium of office work. As for housekeeping being degrading, that is the veriest nonsense.
Home is a little royalty; and if the housewife and mother be of elements finely mixed, and loftily educated, all the more she will regard the cold mutton question of importance, and consider the quality of the soup, and the quantity of chutnee in the curry, as requiring her best attention. It is only the weakest, silliest women who cannot lift their work to the level of their thoughts, and so ennoble both.

There are other types of the discontented wife, with whom we are all too familiar: for instance, the wife who is stunned and miserable because she discovers that marriage is not a lasting picnic; who cannot realize that the husband must be different from the lover; and spends her days in impotent whining. She is always being neglected, and always taking offence; she has an insatiable craving for attentions, and needs continual assurances of affection, wasting her time and feelings in getting up pathetic scenes of accusation, which finally weary, and then alienate her husband. Her own fault ! There is nothing a man hates more, than a woman going sobbing and complaining about the house with red eyes; unless jt be a woman with whom he must live in a perpetual fool’s paradise of perfection.

There are also discontented wives, who goad their husbands into extravagant expenditure, and urge them to projects from which they would naturally recoil. There are others, whose social ambitions slay their domestic ones, and who strain every nerve, in season and out of season, and lose all their self-respect, for a few crumbs of contemptuous patronage from some person of greater wealth than their own. Some wives fret if they have no children, others just as much if children come. In the first case,
they are disappointed; in the second, inconvenienced, and in both, discontented. Some lead themselves and others wretched lives because they have not three times as many servants as are necessary; a still greater number because they cannot compass a
life of constant amusement and excitement.

A very disagreeable kind of discontented voman is the wife who instead of having a God to love and worship, makes a god of her religion, alienates love for an ecclesiastical idea, or neglects her own flesh and blood, to carry the religious needs of the world; forgetting that the good wife keeps her sentiments very close to her own heart and hearth. But perhaps the majority of discontented wives have no special thing to complain of, they fret because they are “so dull.” If they took the trouble to look for the cause of this “dullness,” they would find it in the want of some definite plan of life, and some vigorous aim or object. Of course any aim implies limitation, bat limitation implies both virtue and pleasure. Without rule and law, not even the games of children could exist, and the stricter the rules of a game are obeyed, the greater the satisfaction. A wife’s duty is subject to the same conditions. If aimless plaintive women would make strict laws for their households, and lay out some possible vigorous plan for their own lives, they would find that those who love and work, have no leisure for complaining.

But from whatever cause domestic discontent springs, it makes the home full of idleness, ennui, and vagrant imaginations; or of fierce extravagance, and passionate love of amusement. And as a wife holds the happiness of many in her hands, discontent with her destiny is peculiarly wicked. If it is resented, she gets what slie deserves ; if it is quietly endured, her shame is the greater. For nothing does so much honor to a wife
as her patience; and nothing does her so little honor as the patience of her husband. And however great his patience may be, she will not escape personal injury; since none are to be held innocent, who do harm even to their own soul and body. Besides, it is the inflexible order of things, that voluntary faults are followed by inevitable pain.

Married women, however, are by no means the only complainers. There is a great army of discontents who, having no men to care for them, are clamoring, and with justice, for their share of the world’s work and wages. Such women have a perfect right to make a way for themselves, in whatever direction they best can. Brains are of no sex or condition, and at any rate, there is no use arguing either their ability or their right, for necessity has taken the matter beyond the reach of controversy. Thousands of women have now to choose between work, charity, or starvation, for the young man of to-day is not a marrying man. He has but puny passions, and his love is such a very languid preference that he cannot think of making any sacrifice for it. So women do not marry, they work; and as the world will take good work from whoever will give it, the world’s
custom is flowing to them by a natural law.

Now, earnest practical women-workers are blessed, and a blessing ; but the discontented among them, by much talking and little doing, continually put back the cause they say they wish to advance. No women are in the main so discontented as women-workers. They go into the arena and, fettered by old ideas belonging to a diflferent condition, they are not willing to be subject to the laws of the arena. They want, at the same time, the courtesy claimed by weakness and the honor due to prowess. They complain of the higher wages given to men, forgetting that the
first article of equal payment is equal worth and work. They know nothing about what Carlyle calls “the silences”; and the babble of their small beginnings is, to the busy world, irritating and contemptible. It never seems to occur to discontented working-women that the best way to get what they want is to act, and not to talk. One silent woman who quietly calculates her chances and achieves success does more for her sex than any amount of pamphleteering and lecturing. For nothing is more certain than that good work, either from man or woman, will find a market ; and that bad work, will be refused by all but those disposed to give charity and pay for it.

The discontent of working women is understandable, but it is a wide jump from the woman discontented about her work or wages to the woman discontented about her political position. Of all the shrill complainers that vex the ears of mortals there are
none so foolish as the women who have discovered that the Founders of our Republic left their work half finished, and that the better half remains for them to do. While more practical and sensible women are trying to put their kitchens, nurseries and drawing-rooms in order, and to clothe themselves rationally, this class of Discontents are dabbling in the gravest national and economic questions. Possessed by a restless discontent with their appointed sphere and its duties, and forcing themselves to the
front in order to ventilate their theories and show the quality of their brains, they demand the right of suffrage as the symbol and guarantee of all other rights.

This is their cardinal point, though it naturally follows that the right to elect contains the right to be elected. If this result be gained, even women whose minds are not taken up with the things of the state, but who are simply housewives and mothers, may easily predicate a few of such results as are particularly plain to the feminine intellect and observation. The first of these would be an entirely new set of agitators, who would use means quite foreign to male intelligence. For instance, every favorite priest and preacher would gain enormously in influence and power; for the ecclesiastical zeal which now expends itself in fairs and testimonials would then expend itself in the securing of votes in whatever direction they were instructed to secure them. It might even end in the introduction of the clerical element into our great political Council Chambers — the Bishops in the House of Lords would be a sufiicient precedent — and a great many women would really believe that the charming rhetoric of the pulpit would infuse a higher tone in legislative assemblies.

Again, most women would be in favor of helping any picturesque nationality, without regard to the Monroe doctrine, or the state of finances, or the needs of the market. Most women would think it a good action to sacrifice their party for a friend. Most women would change their politics, if they saw it to be their interest to do so, without a moment’s hesitation. Most women would refuse the primary obligation on which all franchises rest — that is, to defend their country by force of arms, if necessary. And if a majority of women passed a law which the majority of men felt themselves justified in resisting by physical force, what would women do ? Such a position in sequence of female suffrage is not beyond probability, and yet if it happened, not only one law, bat all law would be in danger. No one denies that women have suffered, and do yet suffer, from grave political and social disabilities, but during the last fifty years much has been
continually done for their relief, and there is no question but that the future will give all that can be reasonably desired. Time and Justice are friends, though there are many moments that are opposed to Justice. But all such innovations should imitate Time,
which does not wrench and tear, but detaches and wears slowly away. Development, growth, completion, is the natural and best advancement. We do not progress by going over precipices, nor re-model and improve our houses by digging under the foundations.

Finally, women cannot get behind or beyond their nature, and their nature is to substitute sentiment for reason — a sweet and not unlovely characteristic in womanly ways and places; yet reason, on the whole, is considered a desirable necessity in
politics. At the Chicago Fair, and at other convocations, it has been proven that the strongest-minded women, though familiar with platforms, and deep in the “dismal science ” of political economy, when it came to disputing, were no more philosophical
than the simplest housewife. Tears and hysteria came just as naturally to them, as if the whole world wagged by impulse only; yet a public meeting in which feeling and tears superseded reason and argument, would in no event inspire either confidence or respect. Women may cease to be women, but they can never learn to be men, and feminine softness and grace can never do the work of the virile virtues of men. Very fortunately this class of discontented women have not yet been able to endanger existing conditions by combinations analagous to trades-unions; nor is it likely they ever will ; because it is doubtful if women, under any circumstances, could combine at all. Certain qualities are necessary for combination,, and these qualities are represented in
women by their opposites.

Considering discontented women of all kinds individually, it is evident that they must be dull women. They see only the dull side of things, and naturally fall into a monotonous way of expressing themselves. They have also the habit of complaining, a habit which quickens only the lower intellect. Where is there a more discontented creature than a good wateh dog ? He is forever looking for some infringement of his rights; and an ap-
proaching step, or a distant bark, drives him into a fury of protest. Discontented women are always egotists; they view everything in regard to themselves, and have therefore the defective sympathies that belong to low organizations. They never win confidence, for their discontent breeds distrust and doubt, and however clever they may naturally be, an obtrusive self, with its train of likings and dislikings, obscures their judgment, and
they take false views of people and things. For this reason, it is almost a hopeless effort to show them how little people generally care about their grievances; for they have thought about themselves so long, and so much that they cannot conceive of any other
subject interesting the rest of the world. We may even admit, that the women discontented on public subjects are often women of great intelligence, clever women with plenty of brains. Is that the best ? Who does not love far more than mere cleverness, that sweetness of temper, that sunny contented disposition, which
goes through the world with a smile and a kind word for every one ? It is one of the richest gifts of heaven; it is, according to Bishop Wilson, “nine-tenths of Christianity.”

Fortunately, the vast majority of women have been loyal to their sex and their vocation. In every community the makers and keepers of homes are the dominant power ; and these strictures can apply only to two classes — first, the married women who neglect husband, children and homes, for the foolish eclat of the club and the platform, or for any assumed obligation, social, intellectual or political, which conflicts with their domestic duties: secondly, the unmarried women who, having comfortable homes
and loving protectors, are discontented with their happy secluded security and rush into weak art or feeble literature, or dubious singing and acting, because their vanity and restless immorality lead them into the market place, or on to the stage. Not one
of such women has been driven afield by indisputable genius. Any work they have done would have been better done by some unprotected experienced woman already in the fields they have invaded. And the indifference of this class to the money value of their labor has made it difficult for the women working because they must work or starve, to get a fair price for their work. It is the baldest effrontery for this class of rich discontents to affect sympathy with Woman’s Progress. Nothing can excuse their intrusion into the labor market but unquestioned genius and super-excellence of work; and this has not yet been shown in any single case.

The one unanswerable excuse for woman’s entrance into active public life of any kind, is need, and alas! need is growing daily, as marriage becomes continually rarer, and more women are left adrift in the world without helpers and protectors. But this is a subject too large to enter on here, though in the beginning it sprung from discontented women, preferring the work and duties of men to their own work and duties. Have they found
the battle of life any more ennobling in masculine professions, than in their old feminine household ways ? Is work done in the world for strangers, any less tiresome and monotonous, than work done in the honse for father and mother, husband and children ?
If thev answer truly, they will reply ” the home duties were the easiest, the safest, and the happiest.”

Of course all discontented women will be indignant at any criticism of their conduct. They expect every one to consider their feelings without examining their motives. Paddling in the turbid maelstrom of life, and dabbling in politics and the most unsavory social questions, they still think men, at least, ought to regard them as the Sacred Sex. But women are not sacred by grace of sex, if they voluntarily abdicate its limitations and its modesties, and make a public display of unsexed sensibilities, and unabashed familiarity with subjects they have nothing to do with. If men criticize such women with asperity it is not to be wondered at; they have so long idealized women, that they find
it hard to speak moderately. They excuse them too much, or else they are too indignant at their follies, and unjust and angry in their denunciation. Women must be criticized by women; then they will hear the bare uncompromizing truth, and be the better for it.

In conclusion, it must be conceded that some of the modern discontent of women must be laid to unconscious influence. In every age there is a kind of atmosphere which we call “the spirit of the times,” and which, while it lasts, deceives as to the importance and truth of its dominant opinions. Many women have doubtless thus caught the fever of discontent by mere contact, but such have only to reflect a little, and discover that, on
the whole, they have done quite as well in life as they have any right to expect. Then those who are married will find marriage and the care of it, and the love of it, quite able to satisfy all their desires; and such as really need to work will perceive that the great secret of Content abides in the unconscious acceptance of life and the fulfillment of its duties — a happiness serious and universal, but full of comfort and help. Thus, they will cease to vary from the kindly race of women, and through the doors of Love, Hope and Labor, join that happy multitude who have never discovered that Life is a thing to be discontented with.

MGTOW for Marriage

A lot of men these days are “going MGTOW,” whether they choose those terms overtly, or as the unplanned result of a mood of coolness and caution regarding all interactions with women. They simply see nothing to be gained from interaction with women (beyond a certain point set by personal preference), and much to be lost. This requires men to give up things they hold dear, including children and family. But, the problem today is that marriage does not lead to children and family. Instead, it is the leading cause of divorce; and divorce often results in a man’s children being stolen from him, financial annihilation and multiple years of financial servitude to a woman who is his declared enemy. Even men who avoid divorce find that they are in unhappy marriages. I’ve said that only about 20% of American women make good wives. From that, it follows that only about 20% of American marriages work out well, for the man.

But, I think that this produces the wrong impression. I don’t think MGTOW men (and those that sympathize, the broader red-pill community) are against marriage. They are in favor of marriage. They would like it if, as in the past, a man that marries has a good chance of benefiting from the arrangement; and that, if things don’t work out, the consequences are not total financial and emotional annihilation. They do not have any alternative solution that works on the societal level. But, certain things need to happen before we get to that point.

The basic complaints of the RedPill/MGTOW group are two:

  1. The legal/institutional structures today — family court, domestic violence, “sexual harassment,” the university, the corporation, Twitter’s thought police — make all interaction with women fraught with peril. Not all women have to be like that. If even 1 out of 100 women begin attacking a man with completely false or exaggerated “sexual harassment” or domestic violence claims, leading to job loss, career destruction, a criminal record, fines or imprisonment — the risk is too high to interact with the other 99.

2. Women’s behavior. Women today are simply badly behaved. This can extend to false/exaggerated “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault” or domestic violence claims. But, it also includes a wide range of behaviors that simply make all relationships with women, especially marriage or other long-term relationships, perilous and unrewarding. This is related to the first item: when women are given the ability to do harm to men, they take advantage of this, either in the form of direct harm, or the threat of it. The legal/institutional structure today demands a higher standard of behavior from women. It demands a higher virtue. No longer are women constrained by laws or social strictures — external punishments, or even guidelines. They must discipline their actions themselves. Obviously, this is rare.

Much of the purpose of this website is to fix these problems. The fixes are:

  1. Men need to become politically active, and change the legal/institutional structures. This means that men need to join together into influential groups. That is why I say that, as a way to begin this process, give some money to some men (for example an MRA group) who are doing this work. Some women will support this change. Not a lot, perhaps — let’s say it is 30% — but that is enough to give a majority.

2. Tell women what to do. Women need to be given a simple, easy to follow template of good behavior. The traditional word for this is “morality.” Much of the RedPill space devolves into extravagant analysis of the present situation. This has been worthwhile, but there is more to it than that. Along the way, we can also give men a similar template. Unfortunately, men’s behavior is not so good either, although it is not so harmful to others as women’s. It is more in the nature of being weak, confused and complacent. That is why my admonition is:

Get up off your knees.
Get your patriarchy on.
Tell women what to do.

It is a three-step process.

We can debate what, exactly, we should tell women what to do. But, oddly, there seems to be consensus on that. If you look at such disparate sources as RooshV or Lori Alexander, or Stephen Molyneux or myself, it is almost the same thing: get married young, have lots of children, and be a stay-at-home mom.

The point is: MGTOW is a last-ditch strategy for self-preservation. It is not supposed to be a lasting, long-term “solution.” Most RedPill/MGTOW men would cheer if Problem #1 and Problem #2 above could be fixed, so we could get married and have families again.

Against this, we have the “conservative pro-marriage group.” These people are also in favor of marriage and family, which is a noble and correct thing. However, they have not addressed, and have no solution for, Problems #1 and #2 above. Thus, they are simply tossing good men into the meatgrinder, which in turn makes MGTOW even stronger. Instead of taking a stance on Problem #1 and #2, they have “converged” with mainstream feminism, which means that they are actually making Problem #1 and #2 worse. Their reaction to the problems of the legal/institutional framework is commonly to make them even worse — even more harmful to men.

For example, conservatives have backed the escalation of punishments for “deadbeat dads” which can lead to a prison sentence for many. This is perhaps the only financial obligation in existence today which leads to prison. If you default on your home loan, car loan or credit cards, or even your taxes, you will suffer consequences but you will not go to prison. If you don’t make your childcare payments — because, let’s say, you lost your job and you can’t — then off to the big house you go. Men conclude: don’t get married, out of simple self-preservation.

Conservatives have taken women’s side — the feminist stance — on every moral issue. Every conceivable problem in a marriage is claimed to be the man’s fault. If a woman flat out cheats on her husband, and the base reason is nothing more than a “fear of missing out” on the Sex In The City sexual escapades that other women seem to be enjoying, that is her husband’s fault for not being sexually appealing enough. If a woman divorces her husband for no other reason than “I’m not haaaaaappy,” destroying the family unit with lasting consequences for the children, that is again the husband’s fault. Men look at this and see: we will get no support even from Conservative sources, including the Church. They conclude that they should not get married, out of simple self-preservation.

Thus, I find that MGTOW today should, at least in principle, also become champions of marriage and family — in principle, if not exactly in practice, under today’s conditions. Traditional conservatives need to get to work fixing Problem #1 and #2, rather than making things worse, and leading another generation of men to their doom.

Duties of the Young Wife #6: Self-Education

The Young Wife, in our model, perhaps age 18-23 and not yet with children, does not go to college. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t educate herself. Self-education, as a subset of self-improvement, should be a theme throughout her life, but especially in the early years. The Young Wife should remember that she will be raising her children, and thus she should have the kind of education that she wishes to give to her children.

Since we will assume that the Young Wife got an adequate education regarding Math and Science in high school, her focus will be primarily literature, arts, history and culture. She should also study government or economics, but women tend to be less interested in these topics.

In general, a Young Wife can study about 2-3 hours a day, reading books of merit, in addition to her other duties. This is a level of involvement that can be quite pleasurable, and is not terribly demanding. A Young Wife can also study 6-10 hours per day, if she is serious about her education, but that is for those special women who value that kind of high-level education.

This reading should be “educational.” It can also be fun and interesting, but it should consist of books of lasting merit. Disposable thrillers and romance novels don’t count. Nor do a wide range of books on what are basically degenerate topics, including all sorts of “social justice” books today. Self-improvement should be a constant theme.

One goal of this reading should be to master her native language. The Young Wife should read high-quality literature, not only “high-quality” in the sense of the quality of expression, but also the moral content. Much “serious” literature of the twentieth century can be summed up as: “everyone behaves badly.” Avoid immoral and degenerate topics. Look for stories with a strong moral element. This can be found at every reading level. A Young Wife should start at a reading level that she is comfortable with, and move up as appropriate. For some women, they will have to start at what amounts to a preteen level. Look for books like the Little House on the Prairie series, Anne of Green Gables, Heidi, and The Secret Garden. Moving up a bit, we have books like Little Women and Laddie. At a little higher level, we have some of the big adult novels that are nevertheless easy to read. David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens, or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain might be good.

Getting more complicated, we have books like Middlemarch, War and Peace, and all of Jane Austen. Somewhere along the line, we should include a survey of poetry in English, and start reading the plays of Shakespeare. These bear many rereadings. Eventually, we will be at a level to tackle the Harvard Classics, with some very weighty items including the Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost and the Aeneid.

Most women are rather ill-educated these days, so it would be good for many women to start at what, in the nineteenth century, would have been considered a preteen level.

Our Young Wife can also read many contemporary works of merit. This could be Created to be his Helpmeet, by Debi Pearl, Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, or the Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom. Probably, she should be guided in this by someone, or some resource.

The Young Wife will soon be busy with children. But, she can continue this process of self-education, reading 2-3 hours a day, for a decade or more. This is one of the nice things about being a stay-at-home wife. You can educate yourself to a far higher standard than those other women who have a career, and must devote all their time and energy to vocational issues.

The Best You Can Hope For

Lori Alexander, at The Transformed Wife, pointed out a YouTube video (which I watched when it came out), about a 27yo woman doctor who had come to realize that her career path did not have any room for a family in it.

The woman is “Georgia Free” on Youtube, and I have watched many of her videos. I generally say that there are about 20% of American Women today who actually do make good wives (at least, good enough). Mostly, you never see these women, because they usually become attached to the man they will marry between the ages of 16 and 23, they stay married and they don’t cheat, and thus they are never single and available. I think this was also true of Georgia Free, who (as I understand it) was in a long-term-relationship with a man for five years, who she planned to marry, which means that it would have begun around age 21. But, it didn’t work out for some reason.

The point is, Georgia Free is, by appearances, a high quality woman. She is capable of long-term attachment. She has not had a sordid past of hookups (I think). She is rather attractive, at least a 7/10. She has had a good upbringing, has self-discipline, and is smart and so forth, enough to be a doctor. She values family and marital stability, and loves children. She embraces traditional women’s roles such as cooking and housekeeping. She says that she would not mind being a stay-at-home mother. She is not a feminist nutjob. She does not have a collection of bastard children from uncertain and absent fathers. These have all become rarities today.

As far as I know, she has now found a new man, and is on the way to marrying and starting a family, although I am guessing that she would continue to work afterwards.

In other words, Georgia Free represents the best you can get, while following the Feminist career path — from either a woman’s perspective (successful career, and beautiful too) and a man’s (potential wife material among a swamp of unfit women). So, let’s see where the best you can get gets you.

At age 27, she has used up about 11 years of her period of peak marriageability and fertility (16-32), and has about four years left. I recommend that a woman plan to have all her children before age 32 — that the last child, not the first, be born before 32. Fertility drops off quickly after that, and many women find themselves going to the fertility clininc for IVF or egg freezing beginning around age 35.

But, she is not even married yet. She has to find a man. Then, if all goes well, they will probably spend at least a year “dating.” Perhaps they will want to cohabitate for some time. Then they will decide to get married. Then there is often a year between deciding to get married and the actual marriage itself. Then, if you get to work right away on your honeymoon, you still have another nine months before birth. So, if everything works out great, and her husband is on board with all of this, and doesn’t have issues with low sperm count, she might have her first child around age 31. But, things could go wrong during any of these stages, and often does. Then, she will be out of time, back to square one, looking for a man, at perhaps age 29 or 30.

As a doctor, she had a path of preparation which looked something like this:

1) Four years of high school, during which she probably first started to attract male attention around age 14, and entered her time of peak attractiveness, fertility and marriageability around age 16. For at least some time, she was a Debt-Free Virgin Without Tattoos — perhaps, even past her high school graduation. But, since she was planning to go to a presitigious university, all of her high school “relationships” she treated as temporary and transient, and not the beginnings of something that might lead to marriage. She refused the idea of a premarriage “relationship” (courting) with an older man (beyond high school) out of first principles.

When relationships are assumed to be transient and temporary to begin with, then it is not very important if your “boyfriend” is the kind of fellow who would eventually make a good husband. Thus, a girl can indulge her fantasies about sexy bad boys, relationships with no future, which soon becomes a habit.

If she had been married at age 17, which used to happen, to perhaps an older man who can support a family, then at age 27, she might be a mother of four already. From the man’s point of view, he can spend his Tenth Wedding Anniversary with a wife who is still a vision of youth and beauty. Can’t do that when you marry a 35 year old.

2) Now she has four years of college. Even if we set aside for now all the bad things that can happen to a girl at college, in terms of mis-education (Social Justice/Feminist poison), alcohol abuse and sexual degeneracy, we have another four years spent during her period of Maximum Beauty, Fertility and Marriageability during which again, as in high school, potential relationships that could lead to marriage are treated as transient and temporary, since she plans to go to a prestigious medical school, rather than follow her future husband, that she met in college, to wherever his career takes him.

Again, since these college relationships are assumed to be temporary and transient, she can hook up with sexy bad boys, and ignore all the boring hardworking guys who are preparing for successful careers and supporting a family. Her choices in men can be all for the present and no thought for the future, because they are not supposed to have any future.

She is not likely to get out of college as a Debt-Free Virgin Without Tattoos.

3) Now she has four years of medical school, ages 22-25. In this case, I would guess that she began her long-term possible-future-husband relationship around the beginning of medical school. Perhaps, another future doctor. At some level, maybe she decided that she was in a position to finally start the process of finding a husband, and relationships were no longer transient and temporary, on principle.

But, again she is in medical school, which is hardly the time to get married and have children. Then, she graduates, and begins work as a doctor. Now she probably has no tattoos, but a ton of debt.

Having debt is OK for a doctor, theoretically, because they can look forward to many years of relatively high income, with which they can pay off the debt. But, this high income period does not begin right away. After graduation, a doctor has a further apprenticeship as an Intern, with long hours and lowish pay.

Now she is 26 or 27, and for some reason, she breaks up with her long-term boyfriend that she had hoped to marry. So, now, on top of all the demands of working as an Intern, and paying down debt, getting home tired late at night, she has to somehow find another high-quality man that could be a potential husband.

Now let’s say there is a happy ending, and she finally manages to marry the best sort of fellow, and they have children. Now what?

Now, she has to keep working, as a working mother, neglecting her children. First, because of the enormous investment in education (eight years of college and medical school), plus the low-paid Intern period, that went into training as a doctor. It hardly makes sense to toss all that in the trashcan after a couple years of full-time work, and then quit and become a housewife. This is the Feminist Merit Badge.

Second, most doctors emerge from medical school with a ton of debt, which they would normally pay off over the first decade or so of their career. Fortunately, since she is married to a high-quality husband, they can probably live on his income alone if they are careful (many dual-income families are not), and then she could put the entirety of her income toward debt payments, and thus pay it down quickly. Then, she could quit working if she wanted to, or maybe keep working and not have debts to pay.

But even this would likely take at least five years. And she cannot wait during those five years. She cannot work hard for five years, pay down the debt, quit the job, and then have children and be a full-time housewife. She would be too old, around age 36. It’s not impossible, but that is running out the clock to the very end.

So we see that it doesn’t really make much sense. All the options are barely functional. Much could go wrong.

Now let’s see what happens if she followed my life plan.

As a sixteen year old, from a good family, she catches the attention of a young man who is in medical school, age 24. This is done with the help of her Mother, and her circle of matronly friends, who are eager to find good husbands for their daughters, and good wives for their sons. Today, Mothers often tell their daughters that they should not get involved with men until they have established their career; and that they should avoid any serious relationships that might derail their career plan, instead focusing on transient and temporary arrangements — aided by birth control pills, which her Mother insists on, and which leads to hormonal distortions of her natural affections.

When our man graduates, and begins to make some money, around age 27, he decides to snap up this fantastic girl that he has known for a while, and she gets married at age 19, living at her father’s house until that time.

She is the same intelligent and beautiful girl. Also, on her wedding day, she is a Debt Free Virgin Without Tattoos, unsullied by all the things that can happen during four years of college and medical school. Because she is brainy and energetic, she continues to educate herself, largely by reading books regularly. She doesn’t know much about biochemistry or anatomy, but she does know a lot about literature, history and philosophy/morality/spirituality, and knows how to play the piano. She reads not only for her own enjoyment, or even self-improvement, but because she knows that soon she will have to educate her own children, and she plans to do it well. Since she doesn’t have to work long hours in the hospital, she is careful about what she eats, and works out regularly, so she has an eye-popping fantastic body, which her husband likes very much.

Her first child is at age 20, and by age 27 she has four children. She spends her days at the park with the children and lovingly preparing meals for her family, especially her husband who gets back from a long day at the hospital. He is tired, but she has a lot of energy, so of course they have sex all the time.

When the children get a little older, she begins homeschooling them, and thus is involved with her children’s care all day, and the company of other wives and their children, who are doing the same thing. This, she finds, is very satisfying. And so they live, happily ever after.

Music To Get Married By

There is a lot of music about falling in love, but not much about getting married, and almost nothing about being in love while married.

To illustrate what I mean, listen to this album of music about happy married monogamy. It is The Man I Love, by Peggy Lee. The year was 1957. Frank Sinatra conducted arrangements by Nelson Riddle — the best of that era.

This was rare even by the standards of the 1950s. Much of the popular music of that time — such as Frank Sinatra’s other albums — was really about unmarried serial monogamy, or “dating,” in a 1950s-style Playboy/James Bond manner. In other words, it was subversive. Today, The Man I Love is both alien, and also, comfortably sweet. It might help you kick the Taylor Swift habit. That stuff is toxic poison.

Find it from whatever music source you use. Here is a link from Amazon


Duties of the Young Wife #5: Lookin’ Good

I’ve said it before, but it needs to be said again: the Young Wife should be slim and attractive, just as she was before getting married. Mostly, this means diet and exercise.

By “diet” I mean food quality, not quantity. Calorie counting is not necessary. Eat when you are hungry, within reason. “Quality” means what you eat, not how much. “What you eat,” is, of course, Cooking, and we talked about in the Duties of a Young Wife #3. So, there is nice overlap here. With a good diet of high-quality foods — whole single ingredient foods, with lots of fresh fruit and vegetables while de-emphasizing refined foods such as white flour, white sugar and oils — it is not hard to keep looking good without having to exercise like an Olympic trialist.

Dress should be classy and modest. It should say: “I am classy and married.” No slutwear. No yoga pants outside the yoga studio. But also, no single-girl clothes. Now you are to look like the cherry tree in midsummer, not the cherry tree in flower — even if you happen to be 19. Careerwear is a good example of “classy and modest,” but we are talking about stayathomewifewear here.

Karen Grassle’s outfits as Caroline Ingalls in the Little House on the Prairie TV show exemplify what a young married woman might have dressed like in the 1870s. Mostly, a combo of buttoned shirts and long practical skirts.

When you consider that this woman lived literally on the fringes of civilization, made all her own clothes and washed them by hand, ironed them with an iron heated in a wood fire, and did things like milking cows and chopping wood in them, it’s amazing how well people dressed back then. Yes, I know it is television (the real Caroline was not as good looking as Karen Grassle), but the clothes are about right I think.

If you stacked a hundred sluts from end to end, it still wouldn’t reach to the knees of Caroline Ingalls.

And what about her husband Charles? Wild enough to go past the edge of the known world with three little girls. Civilized enough to wear a bowtie. A man you could rely on to shoot a bear and play the violin. 100% American hardass.

But, on special occasions (the television) Caroline Ingalls knew how to dress up.

Just as a woman is responsible for a house that is not only clean and functional but also charming and beautiful, so she should attend to her own appearance in a manner that is a credit and honor to her husband, family and nation. A woman like that is worth a dozen “trophy wives.” A team of ten of today’s Hamptons trophy wives probably couldn’t split wood for one fire before breaking down into tears and divorce threats. Women like Caroline Ingalls conquered entire continents.

LITTLE HOUSE SONGS: Songs of the “Little House” books by ...

Here she is, ironing her daughter’s handmade dress, while her family is so far into the wild that her house is literally a dirt hole. Women like that are like gold.

Duties of the Young Wife #4: Home Economics

We continue with our Duties of the Young Wife: the things that a young woman should do immediately upon becoming a wife. We will assume that this Young Wife is a stay-at-home wife who does not yet have children.

Another major duty of the Young Wife is “home economics,” or what might also be called: frugality. In other words, she should accomplish her other duties, to as high a standard as she can attain, while also staying within the budget established by her husband. In consultation with his wife, a husband should establish a budget for these recurring expenses. This budget might be small, or it might be extravagant. Some husbands may wish to maintain a position in society that requires a display of opulence. This may include a gigantic residence with many rooms, all of which must be tastefully decorated; perhaps a vacation home or even two, maintained to the same standards; and this extends even to the opulence of his wife’s clothing, for example. The wife should accomplish the goals that have been assigned to her, while staying within her budget.

In general, a wife should aim to accomplish her basic tasks without using much money. This leaves some surplus, which the husband can then use more freely, perhaps at his wife’s wishes. A wife says: “I would really like to have this or do that” which is not in the regular budget. But, since the regular budget is modest, the husband has plenty of money left over to fulfill his wife’s wishes, which he enjoys doing.

This is contrary to a common pattern among women today, which is to pressure and extort their husbands to spend as much as possible on their wives; or to burden the family with extraneous expenses such as credit card bills. This pattern must be rejected.

A Young Wife should go the other way. She should say, to her husband: That is too much; it is not necessary; I don’t need it; the smaller one is fine with me. Typically, the husband then says: Take it anyway; don’t worry about it; spend some money on yourself; it’s a present.

Frugality is especially important today, when a wife who stays home must live comfortably on only her husband’s income, even while the norms and examples of her peers often include two-income families. Basically, she will have to do things differently; usually, more cheaply.

The best frugality is frugality that is inherent. For example, bicycles are inherently much cheaper than automobiles. A two-bedroom condo is inherently cheaper than a four-bedroom freestanding house. A day at the beach is inherently cheaper than a day at an amusement park. Homeschooling is inherently cheaper than private schools. Rather than trying to do more with less, it is usually best to do less, do it well, and have plenty left over.

Sometimes, a husband might need a little encouragement to see the benefit of dropping his minimalist bachelor ways, and spending more money. “Of course that scruffy bachelor thing is good enough — but why not have this thing which is much better, and which is so easily obtainable?” This might be in the form of a better house, or a better education for the children. It might be in the form of better cutlery: for some reason, young men seem to have a thing for kitchen knives of execrable quality. Sometimes, a wife has a sense of social ambition that is a virtue rather than, as is often the case, a vice. But even here, the family’s finances should not be imperiled.

Many of the most important and valuable things do not cost much money. A wife who cooks well can actually save money. You don’t go out to restaurants much when you discover that the best food in town is in your own kitchen. A well-decorated house and a pretty garden reduces the urge to visit hotels and resorts. A rich home life of books and conversation reduces the need for external amusements. A Young Wife can make a home of splendor and beauty without spending very much money. It is mostly a matter of discipline, effort and imagination.

Some women have made frugality into a sport. We see the extreme couponers; or those women who exult in what they can find at yard sales and on eBay; or women who can take a fifty-pound sack of potatoes ($16), a twenty-five pound bag of organic beans ($60), a fifty-pound bag of organic wheat flour ($36), and some herbs and spices ($20), and make a whole month’s worth of tasty food; or women who raise their families in houses of less than 500 square feet — and end up on national television as a result. One of my wife’s friends once appeared in magazines for her exotic fashions; later, she amused herself by assembling outfits from donated clothing that cost her less than $5. “Home economics” does not have to be all scrimping and restriction, but rather, an interesting field of endeavor itself.


It is May, the time of flowering plants, so let us make some ancient comparisons that, nevertheless, lie at the core of our difficulties today.

In Spring, plants flower. This is a wonderful but fleeting time of beauty, similar to a woman’s “flowering” around the ages 16-25. Here is a cherry tree in blossom:

Isn’t that lovely?

Later, the blossoms fall, and the cherry tree, though still in the fullness of summertime life and vigor, nevertheless ends this magical time of beauty:

The purpose of the cherry tree’s flowering is, actually: sex, and procreation. In this case, it is done with the help of insects, which does not translate very well to human affairs. But, there is a reason why the cherry tree blossoms (that is, becomes sexually attractive) at the beginning of warm weather. The cherry tree then procreates (makes fruit with seeds), and these seeds then can use the summer to grow before the next winter. In a similar way, animals (including humans) have children early — early in the summer, or early in life — so that the raising of children can take place during the period of maximum vigor and energy. A woman’s prime childbearing years are 16-32. If she has her last child at 32, that child becomes an adult while the woman is in her early fifties, a time when energies are beginning to wane; and also, a time when she may begin to adopt new duties, such as caring for aging parents.

Men have a little different timeline. But even so, a man over the age of fifty or so becomes unattractive, even if he is both fertile and wealthy enough to support a family. One reason is that, if he has a child at age 53, that child will be twenty when he is 73. He will have to raise the child during a time of declining energy, health and productivity, which is a risky proposition. The child may have to begin taking care of his aging parents at exactly the time when he is also struggling to establish a career and family of his own.

Perhaps, one can argue, we should ignore and frustrate this basic biological process, in order to achieve something that we think is of value; perhaps, a law degree. But even if that is so, we are nevertheless acting contrary to basic natural processes, which introduces an element of disorder, contrariness and difficulty to our affairs. The benefits better outweigh the costs and consequences. Some women will attempt to balance the equation by discarding the idea of children altogether; but, it seems that almost no women can do this successfully and without remorse. They are really only postponing the idea of children. And, they can do this only so long as they have some fertility left to squander on intentional infertility.

I say this mostly for the benefit of young women, and girls, who do not have either much experience, talent for rational calculation, or ability to foresee longer-term consequences; and thus, must rely primarily on what they are told to do by others. Use your Springtime period as the cherry trees do: for procreation. If you are going to procreate (have children), do so within the context of a marriage. This means you have to get married first.