[dragnet]

By now you've all witnessed the shellacking Susan Patton has taken over her advice to the girls at Princeton. James Taranto comes out swinging in her defense---and napalms an entire village of hamsters, to boot.

I quote him at length:

Quote:

Don't be in any hurry to get married. Assuming that you inherited your mother's self-confidence and that you develop a professional career worthy of a Princeton man, your marriageability will only increase for at least the next two decades.

And that's a conservative estimate. Your mother has classmates--men now on the wrong side of Justice Elena Kagan's hypothetical age limit of 55--who are married to their first wives and are the fathers of toddlers. Needless to say, the wives are a lot younger than the chaps. That is the paradox of male aging: The older you get, the younger the pool of available women becomes.

All of which is to say that because of the biological differences between the sexes, the Rosin play-now-marry-later strategy is as perfectly suited for high-status men as it is dysfunctional for women. That's especially true when the Rosin strategy is prevalent among women, for if women followed the Patton strategy instead, high-status men would face greater pressure to commit and a smaller pool of playmates in college and prospective wives later on.

If that is sexist, then Mother Nature is sexist. (Or, if you prefer, God is sexist, or natural selection if you don't go in for anthropomorphism.) If you think it unjust that our social institutions tilt the sexual playing field even further to the advantage of high-status men and the detriment of everyone else, then your quarrel is with those who espouse the ideologies that have produced that result: feminism and sexual liberationism.

One more bit of advice for Susan Patton's son: A lot of your mother's detractors seem gleeful at the thought that her notoriety will rub off on you to your disadvantage--that you'll be embarrassed and women will shun you. As long as you take it all in stride, nothing of the sort will happen. You are now slightly famous. That won't repel women, it will make them curious about you.

But be prepared. Being curious, they will ask questions. You need answers that will heighten their curiosity rather than satisfy it, that will not allow them to pigeonhole you as "too eager to commit" or "just a player," even if you are in fact one or the other. We suggest the following, delivered with a wry half-smile and a slight roll of the eyes: "Oh yeah, Mom really wants grandchildren. I don't know if I'm ready for that kind of commitment."

Read the whole thing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...%3Darticle


A mainstream news organization is shitting on feminists by name and disseminating hands-on, practical Game advice---with no apology. It's worth considering for a moment how remarkable this is. This could not have happened even two years ago. I don't think it's too much to assert that manosphere ideas and tactics are now firmly a part of this American cultural moment.

And not a moment too soon.

[JimNortonFan]

The worm is turning.

I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime but the damage is so profound; economic, social, military, it impacts everything.

Kids raised by single moms are needier, fatter, lazier, less fit for paying interest on the debt, working for a company, taking over enemy countries etc.

The birthrate is in the tank and the economic workhorses of the world, the Beta males, are going their own way.

Guys denied the chance to reproduce start shooting. See Dorner, Christopher.

I'm guessing Red Pill and Game go mainstream within 2 years.

The Sex and the City fans are in for a rude awakening.

[Emancipator]

To you James Taranto

[vinman]

I'm loving this. More men are standing up. Not whining, and complaining, but stating things plainly. About fucking time.

[2Wycked]

Taranto has always been, at the least, borderline red pill. He has been criticizing feminism in real, substantive ways since at least 2009 (when I started following his posts).

Anyways, the best part of the responses to Patton assume a self-interested view on Patton's part to get her sons laid/married off. Really, women assume a self-interested intent on the part of another woman? Sounds like projection to me.

Reminds me of multiple conversations I've had about the college education/marriage correlation bullshit. Currently, the US government is basically subsidizing the wombs of poor women to prop up collapsing birthrates of the country. College-educated women marry later, have less kids and more likely to birth a child with developmental disorders unrelated to alcohol, weed. etc (example - autism). Feminists need to keep up birth rates - which is why they cosign immigration and subsidies for poor mothers. Somebody has to produce the next generation while they fight so hard to make wages to buy shit they don't need, for professional titles that won't matter in the end - and -most importantly - signal social status to other women through their "jobs."

[Vicious]

Rats, here I thought this was about General Patton and got all worked up.

[cibo]

(04-14-2013 03:32 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Rats, here I thought this was about General Patton and got all worked up.

I thought the same.

[soup]

This part stuck out to me:

".. think it unjust that our social institutions tilt the sexual playing field even further to the advantage of high-status men and the detriment of everyone else"

Why?

Because it's an important realization beta guys as well: do you whatever it is too either become or appear high status.

There really is no middle ground. You cannot lead a passive life. You are either a slave or the master. It's not fair, but nature is not fair. Unlike women, betas can accept this reality and do something about, thanks to game.

Or they can ignore it and be slaves.

[Poochie]

Two steps forward, one step back. Presumably in an attempt to provide some semblance of editorial balance to the alpha stylings of James Taranto, the Journal also published this bean diddling and intellectually bankrupt piece this weekend.

The piece explains how great the marriage market is for today's overcredentialed Ivy League woman.

Quote:

The gender imbalance has led many educated women to marry much younger men. These men are game because they prefer to have a wife who is older and more economically successful over a wife who is younger and less able to provide financial stability. The women, in turn, get a young, virile spouse.

Yup, this equalist regurgitation shows exactly how gender roles work, with men looking to a strong career woman to provide comfort and stability in their lives so they can focus on being stay-at-home dads.

Quote:

Husbands are freer to care for the needs of the family while the women focus on their lucrative careers.

Don't crow too loudly about red pill acceptance when this sort of dreck is published in the same newspaper.

[Kingsley Davis]

"One more bit of advice for Susan Patton's son: A lot of your mother's detractors seem gleeful at the thought that her notoriety will rub off on you to your disadvantage--that you'll be embarrassed and women will shun you. As long as you take it all in stride, nothing of the sort will happen. You are now slightly famous. That won't repel women, it will make them curious about you."

Agree and amplify.

[bacon]

How many women under 45 even read the WSJ?

Here is the woman who wrote the retort on video

http://live.wsj.com/video/think-before-y...B0B2F012C5

[germanico]

I approve of this message (to all women).

[Samseau]

None of this stuff really matters, because at the end of the day, in America, for every 1 woman who is bangable, there are 4 dudes who haven't been laid in over a month chasing her.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...p_newsreel

^ I find this piece to be much more realistic than Taranto's piece, because she is correct in assessing how stacked the odds are in women's favor.

What she is wrong about, however, is this retarded fantasy:

Quote:

Finally, at a time when women outrank men in education and income, it no longer makes economic sense for a woman to marry up in terms of education. The most economically productive marriages for professional women are ones in which husbands are freer to care for the needs of the family while the women focus on their lucrative careers.

Lol at the "house-husband"... sorry, you can slut it up and make tons of $$$ as a woman today, but there is a 70% (or higher) you'll still be a barren .

[horn]

Her piece wasn't realistic at all: The fewer college-educated, successful men there are relative to women, the higher our value. She directly writes that the opposite will occur, that as *more* women graduate, their value goes up and the male graduate's declines.

I've read her for years, she has some interesting Econ posts, but this Op-Ed was clearly hastily written, and poorly thought out.

She also fails to understand that if the married guy staying at home with kids while PhD Woman is out having affairs, he won't settle for being a cuckhold -- he'll divorce her, get half the stuff, ask for the house, ask for primary custody and child support.

She thinks the Guy will sit home and take no action at all! Hilarious! [Of course there are Omegas, but even a beta husband of a high-earning millionaire will take the $$$, and then go out and sleep with a hot waitress or college girl or fellow HS grad.]

[T and A Man]

Some banal pop panel cum avante garde current affairs show here in Australia had Susan Patton on TV just 10 minutes ago.

She came to the end of her segment, and she reiterated her advice isn't universal, but is for woman who knew they wanted marriage and children. it raised a huff, then she followed up with "A male Princeton Graduate is going to increase his desirability for years.. decades to come. However for a woman, once she reached 30, 35 her desirability diminishes as her biological ability for children start to decrease."

You then heard groans from the female panellists and Susan followed up with...

"Highly desirable men are just going to pick younger women. This is why when you're in university, you make him your husband early. Feminists are selling women lies about what they can do, and all they are dong today are making women aggravated and confrontational".

Some spluttering came out of one woman on the panel at that point who was immeditely called an aggravated, confrontational feminist by a male panellist, then it pretty much wound up the segment.

[The Father]

(04-14-2013 05:34 AM)cibo Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 03:32 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Rats, here I thought this was about General Patton and got all worked up.

I thought the same.

It was:

"Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll lose your erection under fire. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. The ameri-sluts are the enemy! Wade into them! Pop their cherries! Fuck them in the belly! When you put your dick into a bunch of goo that a moment before was a dry pussy, you'll know what to do.

Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding hands with our girlfriends. We’re not holding anything. Let the Beta do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except a slut! We're going to hold onto her by the tits, and we're going to fuck her in the ass! We're going to fuck the hell out of her all the time and we're gonna go through sluts like crap through a goose!

There’s one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home. And you may thank God for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what did you do in the great slut wars of Marriage 2.0, you won’t have to say, "Well, I jerked off to internet porn in Louisiana."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f9d_1368660378

[Snowplow]

(04-14-2013 10:19 AM)bacon Wrote:  

How many women under 45 even read the WSJ?

Here is the woman who wrote the retort on video

http://live.wsj.com/video/think-before-y...B0B2F012C5

Well that was just awful. It raised the hairs on the back of my neck. Its not that its new and shocking, but just how they are trying to spin it and justify it as the new normal.