Many have noted that men are not particularly enthused by a working girl’s accomplishments. Women call this “being intimidated.” Men usually insist this is not the case. It rarely goes much further than this. So, let’s go further.

1. She Isn’t Going To Like You. Every man knows, consciously or intuitively, that women are “hypergamous.” They seek out men with higher social standing, better looks, an appealing manner, and of course, more money. There are good reasons for this; and anyway, it probably isn’t going to change. In practical terms, women want a man that makes significantly more — perhaps 50% more — money than her; 200% more would be better. This has a practical aspect. For example, if a woman wants to become a full-time mother with children (which is a sensible thing), then a man’s income must support the whole family, which might have 3x the expenses of a single working person. If a woman marries a man that makes less than 3x her income, her lifestyle would probably take a step lower, compared to if she spent all her income on herself. If she likes to spend a week in Paris in April, spending her own money, then she looks for a man that can afford a week in Paris with a family of four. Or, she would have to become a working mother.
   
   Men understand this, and sense that, whatever their accomplishments may be, this particular woman will not appreciate them, and instead will be rather bitter that you do not live up to her “standards.” Wouldn’t you rather spend time with a woman with some respect and appreciation for you — especially if you are going to be paying for her the rest of your life — rather than a constant undertone of resentment? In any case, men understand that they might not get very far along the process, and are probably headed for this particular woman’s discard bin, and begin to steel themselves for rejection.
   
   Let’s take a man and a woman who both have an income of $150,000 per year — pretty good. Of roughly equal background and socioeconomic status, they would seem to be a good match. But this man can find many women who will consider him an appealing life partner. He doesn’t have to waste his time on some testy bitch who is seething with resentment that she couldn’t find someone making $450,000 a year who would have her, and instead has to settle for this third-rate loser.
   
   There is an exception to the “hypergamy” rule: hookups. When it is established at the outset that the purposes of the “relationship” are sexual thrills only, then women are not so picky. Thus, when a man meets a woman who makes more money than him, the logical approach is to send her straight to the “hookup” bin, where he has a higher chance of success. Here, wealth and status are not very relevant to a woman, as anyone can see when they consider the sexy broke losers that so many women hook up with. The main factors are physical looks and PUA skills. A woman can be very picky looking for “Mr. Right,” but is not so choosy regarding “Mr. Right Now.” Of course there is “hypergamy” here too, but it has a much more limited scope. To take one example: hardly anyone would consider themselves a viable marriage/LTR candidate for Charlize Theron (the actress who recently lamented about her singlehood), nor has anyone appeared in that role (she is still publicly single), but something tells me that Charlize Theron is not a celibate.
   
   The natural effect of this is: men will offer hookups instead of relationships, and women will take it. Not a very good pattern overall.
   
2. Men are naturally hypogamous. Just as a woman seeks a man who she can look up to (has higher social standing), and who can serve the role of her leader, so too men look for women who have the potential to follow his lead. This is often called being “submissive,” although that is a rather poor term. Mostly, it means being cooperative — working together, without conflict. A wealthy man, with choices, would rather marry a simple and sweet 18-year-old girl, rather than having to deal with some worn-out bitch with a bad attitude and an impressive resume. If the 18-year-old girl came from a wealthy family, all the better.
   
3. Women will not respect a man that does not take the leadership role. If a woman who makes a lot of money were to take the leadership role in a family (as often does happen to women who marry men who make less money than them, and continue working), that woman will eventually become disgusted with the man she married. A marriage in which a man takes a leadership role can function well; one in which the woman takes the leadership role is inherently unstable and will likely break apart. This dynamic is behind female hypergamy/male hypogamy.
   
   Another version of a similar thing is the idea that a woman can either be in the role of a wife or a mother. A wife takes a cooperative/subordinate position to the man that she has chosen as her leader. A mother is in a leadership position with respect to her children. A man can lead other men, as a man among men. General Patton, of the Third Army in World War II, or Julius Caesar, were leaders of men. They did not treat their soldiers like children; and the soldiers knew that they were also men among men, who, to accomplish anything worthwhile, must have a leader. However, when a woman takes a leadership role, she often slips into the role of the mother, and treats her subordinates as children. Thus, a woman in a leadership role in the family soon considers her husband “like a child,” is revolted at his “man-child” behavior (his agreement to acquiesce to her leadership, even if only as a means to reduce conflict), and perhaps soon refuses to have sex with him, as any mother would refuse to have sex with her own children. The husband, who might be perfectly willing to have a subordinate role as a man among men, as is common in any corporation, does not want to be treated like a child; is puzzled why his wife is so angry with him although he acquiesces to all her demands; and is soon considering all the younger, hotter women who seem eager to accept his leadership, including sex.
   
4. Women who make more money are usually a loooong way down the feminist/SJW/Leftist indoctrination hellhole. A lot of feminist/Leftist/Cultural Marixist indoctrination happens in universities. That’s one reason why the professional classes of San Francisco and New York City are so deeply Leftist, while the working classes of flyover country are generally conservative. SF/NYC/DC/LA are where all the graduates of the better universities end up after their four-year indoctrination. Men who have also gone to a better university often know what a load of crap this all is, how unfeminine and unattractive such women are, and also, how rare it is for a woman to ever recover from this indoctrination procedure. Or, what is also common, men who have also absorbed this toxic filth become “male feminists,” who are as revolting to women as female feminists are revolting to men.
   
5. Women with professional accomplishments are older. The purpose of marriage, and relationships, is basically: to provide a framework for begetting and raising children. A woman has limited fertility, and every man has an intuitive understanding of how much fertility a woman has left, no matter what her accomplishments or physical attributes. Even a supermodel with a hundred magazine covers to her name, a 1-in-100,000 beauty, at age 35 will not seem as “sexy” to a man as a nineteen-year-old girl who is a 7/10. A man can appreciate her beauty at age 35, much as he can admire a fine horse, or the winner of a dog show, but in terms of raw sexual attraction, the fertile nineteen-year-old with a good ten years of childbearing potential ahead of her gets more of his attention.
   
   If a man is going to hire a lawyer, he would rather have one that is thirty-five than one who is nineteen. But, marriage is a different matter.
   
   This is long enough for now, so perhaps we will continue later.

Yes, I will clean things up around here at some point. But, I wanted to get going, and not wait around until everything was prettified.

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.