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.

Dating Without Sex

One of the advantages of Courtship, or Courtship that involved “dating,” (that is, without sex), aka “Traditional Dating,” was that a man and a woman would spend a lot of time together, without having sex. They would find out if they enjoyed each other’s company. They would become friends first. Somewhere along the line, they might also “fall in love.” Unfortunately, a lot of marriages today are among worn-out Carousel Riders and their simp-y Beta Provider husbands, where “falling in love” (aka “pair bonding”) is nowhere to be found (among the women), and where women not only don’t like their husbands very much, but actually dislike them.

“Dating without sex” doesn’t make much sense in terms of “dating,” which is why one rule among “daters” is: “If she doesn’t put out in three dates, dump her. She is not that into you.” But, in terms of Courtship, it is no big deal: If you are going to get married anyway, who cares if you end up waiting three months or so, especially if you enjoy the company if this woman, as a companion, without sex? It would just be adding something good to something good.

Big Math

While women struggle to figure out that 80% of the women can’t marry 20% of the men, men are doing this:

Mate Selection for Modernity

It concludes:

This imbalance in the sexual marketplace is not a good thing. A society teeming with lonely women and sexually frustrated men is one hurtling toward disaster. It is imperative that we, as a society, think carefully about solutions to this burgeoning crisis.

This is systems thinking. Apparently, only men can do it.

There are no Matriarchies.

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle

“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” it has been said. This is not quite so: but the “hand that rocks the cradle” does determine the world. It seems like the oddities of young people are rather irrelevant. Who cares if some 19-year-old dingbat has some kind of kooky opinion in college? It seems like they don’t have much influence. Their elders and betters both outnumber these young goofs, but also, have positions of responsibility and leadership. But, these young people eventually grow up; and those elders, raised under different conditions, get old and die. The young goofs become degenerate adults, entering and then eventually leading the major institutions, and the older adults become irrelevant.

Unfortunately, women today have largely abandoned the task of raising children (and thus “determining the world”) to public schools, television, media, universities, and basically the whole Cultural Marxist sewer pipe. We really don’t need women to do men’s jobs. What we need is someone to raise the children so that they don’t grow up to be the modern-day equivalent of Mao’s Cultural Revolutionaries. This will, at the least, require getting the children out of public schools; and much more than that. Men need to find wives who are ready and able to do that, and who are not themselves irredeemable products of Cultural Marxist pollution. In other words, a TradBabe of at least Level 4 housewife potential.

Here, as inspiration, is the original 19th century poem, “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World.”

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle Rules the World
by William Ross Wallace (1819-1881)

Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy’s the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow —
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission,
Here upon our natal sod;
Keep – oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky —
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Helen Roy

In the interests of presenting good role models for girls and young women, I bring you Helen Roy. Of course she is a TradBabe. I don’t know if she is married, pregnant, or has children. I hope so. But, also, she is rather brainy, which is fine you know. Wouldn’t you Big Brain girls rather use your Big Brain to write articles like these while the baby is sleeping, rather than churning out merger and acquisition documents until 9pm while another egg dies?

Helen Roy at The American Mind

Unfortunately for us men, the percentage of women who are TradBabes with Big Brains is very small.

Behave Yourself

Lori Alexander at The Transformed Wife gets an amazing amount of vitriol for what I consider the mildest conventional wisdom. My own mother exemplified all these principles. My wife (who is Japanese and learned English as a second language) also follows these general principles. But, it seems that a lot of American women out there really have been driven batshit crazy by feminism. Miles Mathis noted that 56.3% of White “liberal” women under age 30 report mental illness. It’s not just my opinion. Unfortunately, men can’t really marry a batshit crazy woman. If you also screen out the fatties, and limit yourself to women who are neither batshit crazy nor obese, this does not leave a very large pool of women. Women do learn over time, and sometime after Age 28 realize the errors of their youth. But, it is often too late for them by then.

read: Why Do Women Cry Ab*se When I Teach On Marriage?

But, this is advice mostly for younger women and girls. Listen closely, because it is important.

Don’t be a crazy bitch.

Barnyard Animal from 1000 Years Ago Explains how to Manage 50 Wives

Introduction, The Thousand and One Nights, circa 1000 AD.

On the following morning, the merchant and his wife went to the bull’s crib, and sat down there; and the driver came, and took out the bull; and when the bull saw his master, he shook his tail, and showed his alacrity by sounds and actions, bounding about in such a manner that the merchant laughed until he fell backwards. His wife, in surprise, asked him. At what dost thou laugh? He answered, At a thing that I have heard and seen; but I cannot reveal it; for if I did, I should die. She said. Thou must inform me of the cause of thy laughter, even if thou die.—I cannot reveal it, said he: the fear of death prevents me. Thou laughedst only at me, she said; and she ceased not to urge and importune him until he was quite overcome and distracted. So he called together his children, and sent for the Kadi and witnesses, that he might make his will, and reveal the secret to her, and die: for he loved her excessively, since she was the daughter of his fraternal uncle, and the mother of his children, and he had lived with her to the age of a hundred and twenty years. Having assembled her family and his neighbours, he related to them his story, and told them that as soon as he revealed his secret he must die; upon which every one present said to her. We conjure thee by Allah that thou give up this affair, and let not thy husband, and the father of thy children, die. But she said, I will not desist until he tell me, though he die for it. So they ceased to solicit her; and the merchant left them, and went to the stable to perform the ablution, and then to return, and tell them the secret, and die.

Now he had a cock, with fifty hens under him, and he had also a dog; and he heard the dog call to the cock, and reproach him, saying, Art thou happy when our master is going to die? The cock asked, How so?—and the dog related to him the story; upon which the cock exclaimed. By Allah! our master has little sense: I have fifty wives; and I please this, and provoke that; while he has but one one wife, and cannot manage this affair with her: why does he not take some twigs of the mulberry-tree, and enter her chamber, and beat her until she dies or repents? She would never, after that, ask him a question expecting anything. And when the merchant heard the words of the cock, as he addressed the dog, he recovered his reason, and made up his mind to beat her. Now, said the Wezir to his daughter Shahrazad, perhaps I may do to thee as the merchant did to his wife. She asked. And what did he? He answered, He entered her chamber after he had cut off some twigs of the mulberry-tree, and hidden them there; and then said to her. Come into the chamber, that I may tell thee the secret while no one sees me, and then die:—and when she had entered, he locked the chamber-door upon her, and beat her until she became almost senseless and cried out, I repent:—and she kissed his hands and his feet, and repented, and went out with him; and all the company, and her own family, rejoiced; and they lived together in the happiest manner until death.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg created a model of “stages of moral development” that remains useful. He was later criticized as creating a model of specifically male moral development — which is probably true. It illustrates the thinking process of advanced (not all) males. Kohlberg found that no women advanced beyond the third “conventional” stage: it is OK if everyone else is doing it.

Wikipedia provides more detail on these different stages.


The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children and is expected to occur in animals, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. “The last time I did that I got spanked, so I will not do it again.” The worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is “egocentric”, lacking recognition that others’ points of view are different from one’s own. There is “deference to superior power or prestige”.

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could result in punishment. For example, a child’s classmate tries to dare the child to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the “what’s in it for me” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest, or whatever is “convenient,” but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one’s reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality,[5] which is commonly described as quid pro quo, a Latin term that means doing or giving something in order to get something in return. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual’s own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world’s perspective is often seen as morally relative. See also: reciprocal altruism.


The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society’s views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

In Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society’s views. They try to be a “good boy” or “good girl” to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the “golden rule“. “I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me.” Conforming to the rules for one’s social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that “they mean well”.

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.


The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to/that meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromiseDemocratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[21] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.[22] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg’s first five stages through data analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of Kohlberg’s sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a concrete stage in moral development.

Further stages

In his empirical studies of individuals throughout their life, Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality.[10] In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4+, a transition from stage four to five, that shared characteristics of both.[10] In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong.[10] Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.[10][17]

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage, however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.


It is interesting to me in particular that the specifically Masculine Stages (Stage 4 and later) are systems-based thinking. What are the consequences to the system of this and that. Here again is the description:

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

In short, it is Frame. It is the building of civilization. The organization of systems. Law and order. Women, apparently, cannot do it.

For example, women apparently cannot figure out, no matter how many years and decades pass, that 80% of the women can’t marry 10% of the men (without polygamy). Even if you explain it to them, it makes no mental impression. You might as well be describing the airflow dynamics of helicopters. They go back to their regular default, which is: conforming to the norms of their social group.

Women are able to choose their social group — and may do so for reasons even of self-preservation. They choose which Frame to participate in.

Has Lindsay Lohan Converted To Islam - Islam for Muslims ...

Typically, being otherwise lost, they will choose some kind of Frame to participate in, no matter how destructive.

Women’s morality typically involves Mercy as opposed to Justice. Justice would say: If you steal, you must be punished — even if it is “for a good reason.” If we allow people to steal, the consequences to the system would be catastrophic. And, any fool would soon figure out that if we allowed stealing “for a good reason,” then everyone would have a good reason. Mercy would say: But, this child must not be allowed to go hungry. It is not a systems-based approach of general principles, but a specific case-by-case approach of real-world situations in personal interactions. You could say that the two complement each other nicely. Perhaps there is a valid hierarchy of Mercy-oriented moral development appropriate for women, beyond the adolescent Stage 3 of Kohlberg.

Mercy can operate because of the Frame of Justice. It provides the exceptions to the Rule. But, if there are no rules, and only exceptions, then there is anarchic chaos. Everyone is stealing from everyone else, and everybody goes hungry. Eventually, you would have to rebuild Justice again, probably beginning with the extended family.

The natural conclusion here is that men must fix everything. Women can’t fix anything. Haven’t you noticed that? Women can maintain and preserve things, just as women today have been the chief maintainers and preservers of most Christian congregations. Women can be told how to fix things, by men. But, they can’t fix anything themselves.

In other words, Matriarchy does not exist.