When you are married, you might as well wake up every morning, go look at yourself in the mirror and say, “Fuck you. Fuck your dreams, your ambitions and anything else that is important to you. It’s all about her.”
-Chris Rock
In our efforts to understand and quantify women‘s power, we are hobbled by the fact that our culture has very, very limited ways to articulate the nature of that power. In fact, we live largely in denial of the massive amount of muscle and sway inherent to being female, and are under any number of cultural pressures, reinforced by massive societal denial, to act as though that power does not exist.
What would seem to be a minor example of this at work can be seen every time your spell check redlines the word misandry. Though this is actually not so minor. A culture that refuses to acknowledge that a perfectly legitimate word exists on paper, is in effect denying its existence to the collective consciousness. And when such prejudicial elimination of ideas runs unchecked, it not only has the power to skew attitudes and perspectives, but also to shape law and policy, education and public awareness. Misandry runs rampant because misandry does not exist.
Women need empowerment, and always will, because women’s power itself does not exist.
We do have one exception to this. It is the “I am woman, hear me roar,” exception. We are bound as members of this society to proclaim women to be powerful, capable equals to men, even as we are also shackled to the opinion that women are the subjugated victims of oppression by the men who they are supposedly equal to. In its own ironic and completely contradictory way, the “I am woman,” exception is just a publicly mandated, schmaltzy affirmation of the Stuart Smalley variety. We are all compulsory grrl power cheer leaders, chanting therapeutic mantras at women about a kind of power they do not have, and never have had.
And it only serves to lead us further astray from the very real power that they do possess.
We don’t have common expressions like “female dominance,” or “matriarchal oppression,” and despite their absolute legitimacy, as sure as we use them 98% of the public will roll their eyes in summary dismissal, thus demonstrating another aspect of overarching female power that bears no name, and therefore does not exist.
It is like trying to describe a cloud without being able to use the word itself- to a world that does not believe in clouds. We are limited to talking around the subject; we present our meanings in metaphors and similes and anecdotes. We may describe how the power of accusation from women often ruins innocent men, or how men go in to family court at a complete disadvantage by virtue of having a penis, rather not having a vagina, but we really have precious little language to address all this directly. As a result, much of what we say is dismissed as hyperbolic and overly reactionary.
It’s the female advantage to have power that is at once overbearing and invisible; everywhere and nowhere.
But this is beginning to change, thanks to the MRM. Growing numbers of men and women are now aware of misandry, despite their spell checks continued ignorance of it. And with the furtherance of the use of that word, we are not only pushing another addition to the lexicon, but some very key ideas that go with it.
- Women can, and do, irrationally hate every bit as much as men.
- Women can be sexist, and many are.
- Men can be self hating, and many are.
That is the power of a single word, and the more it is forced into mainstream use, the more, albeit slowly, that attitudes begin to change. We are not there yet, but the day is coming that misandry will take its place alongside misogyny in the collective consciousness, and people will have a hard time thinking of one without a cognizance of the other. Language is the locus of social change.
In that spirit, I am continuing the Zeta Game series with a focus on not only reversing the polarity of the power flow between men and women, but on attempting to infuse some more meaning and clarity into the language we use when doing it. And I can best start by taking a word that has been popping up in the Game dialog for some time now.
Hypergamy.
The word is literally defined as the custom of women marrying up, or marrying men who have a higher socioeconomic status than women possess on their own. Gamesters have already expanded on it to describe women’s natural inclination to be sexually stimulated in the presence of powerful men. I read a recent comment in another forum saying that even the most committed of married women will get the ‘gina tingle in the presence of such men, even when ugly ass Henry Kissinger walks into a room.
I have no doubt it is true.
But there is much more to hypergamy, and at the very least it serves the purpose of men well to revise and expand upon our understanding of it, and include that into our common language.
First we should consider that the literal definition of hypergamy and the Game definition both point to the same outcome- women with access to, and use of, the power generated by men.
That power can come in many different forms, and will be pursued differently by different women, especially at different points in their lives.
A younger woman may be attracted to the immediate presence of personal power via thug attraction, while an older, more sophisticated woman will be turned on by a successful man of means. There is, in the biological sense, not one iota of difference between the two women. Both get hot and bothered by what they hope to eventually have control over.
So whether the ‘gina tingle is sparked by a guy on a Harley or a guy with a Harley factory, they are tingling over essentially the same thing.
Both women will enter the relationship in honeymoon phase, but will eventually use the tried and tested methods of sexual manipulation and/or emotional blackmail to put the man on a leash and start assuming ownership of everything he produces, including money, home and personal time.
The average woman will become increasingly demanding and insistent that the energy all revolve around her, and the standard response is for the man to acquiesce. And as I wrote about in my essay, “A Prayer for Joe Bob,” this is where we also see the man lose more and more of himself to her wishes and whims.
Women don’t just marry up. They are on constant alert to better deal themselves, even within, especially within, their current relationships. They enter relationships with the intent to eventually exert total control over them. I saw a woman wearing a T-shirt once that said it as succinctly as I have ever seen it.
More me. Less you.
To illustrate the point further I am reminded of one of the questions I used to ask in the men’s groups I facilitated.
“How many of you,” I would ask, “have ever had the feeling that you wanted to pull all of your hair out by the roots and scream bloody murder because no matter what you did, she was not happy with it and wanted more?”
The roughly 5% of men who answered this question in the negative were all gay.
Even men that claimed to be happily married were able to relate to this frustration, and indeed many of those men attributed their “happy marriage” to the fact that they gave their wives whatever they wanted with no questions.
I call this hypergamy in action, and it is a form of exercised power that is unequaled in its ability to control a man’s life- and it is all but universal to the male experience.
For men who desire the ability to avoid that trap, giving hypergamy an expanded definition (and yes, I can do that if I want to) is in order.
Hypergamy is the innate tendency in women to reduce men to mere utilitarian value, to extract as much personal use from men as possible. And to continue to do so until the man is used up.
In short, hypergamy is the universal drive in women to turn men into appliances, and whether that appliance is a dildo or an ATM or both, makes little difference.
And the hell with NAWALT, in one way or another ALL heterosexual women practice hypergamy, and my money is on the idea that most lesbians do as well. It is biological programming, not conscious choice, so hating women for it is about as useful as hating men for liking tits and ass.
And besides, one need not hate women to understand and counteract hypergamy. Indeed, it is quite possible to force any woman you are connected to into more or less chasing her tail in circles with her hypergamous tendencies, leaving her to experience the frustration that she usually is the one to inflict. And it does not require scheming, manipulation, dishonesty or any of the other less savory aspects of non Zeta Game.
In fact, it demands that you do just the opposite of those things and operate only in honest, direct ways that scream self assurance and self awareness.
I will cross that bridge in the next article, Hypergamy Crossroads.
Tags: Game, Masculinity, Men, Men's Issues, Zeta Masculinity
440 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
ThoughtCriminal:
Paul Elam:
Jared White:
4thtroika:
Rad:
Excellent description, I think experienced men would agree. Things are changing slowly, the mass media will pick up the message when they are desperate for consumers. Yet, I still believe that things will get worse before they get better and this is just the beginning of a very long battle.
Some politically incorrect humor, because sometimes you have to laugh at the absurdity of it all.
Chris Rock on Marriage
Nice quote at 1:30 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mICCfj-31Vg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U1QJpJ1ULA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X0Qqxx3f0
Chris Titus Love is evol
I nearly fell out of my seat when he responded to the judge about his false DV accusation. Part 4 at 2:00 min.
chris rock has alot to offer in his comedy about women having it so good and men getting the short end of the stick….its nice to see someone out there speak about it in public/tv…its rare
good article!!….i’m glad someone is talking about this…sadly your not going to hear this discussed on national public radio or the like…i swear it seems like every week on NPR they have some discussion on womens issues .
I’ve watched that skit with Rock a million times. Also this line: “Women need empowerment, and always will, because women’s power itself does not exist” is pure gold. Well, you always get called a hater when you stand up to women. It’s inevitable.
“We may describe how the power of accusation from women often ruins innocent men…” Such as the Duke University Lacrosse Abomination, where even the new prosecutor (after Nifong was ruined), a man who WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO PROCLAIM INNOCENCE, which is entirely different from telling the media that there is a lack of habeus corpus, did
NOTHING
about Crystal Gale Mangum. She ruined the reputations and livelihoods of numerous men (and the women who raised them), and she’s just got a mental problem. Well, so does the prosecutor.
Speaking of men pulling their hair out, I am reminded of a time when I saw Sonny Bono on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” and he told the audience that he knew it was over when, after managing a ton of publicity, walking his wife past adoring fans and photographers into a swank hotel, Cher turned to him in their room and supposedly said, “You know, I wish we were big.” Even Cher, at Bono’s funeral, freely admitted that he was always the butt of the joke because he created it. At least in death, there was some acknowledgement. I wonder if after the divorce there had been any acknowledgement between them in private. I hope so.
let me, in all modesty, link you to a song of mine that has a similar topic to that fantastic article here:
I have been unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to talk about the power of women in society for a while now. Hypergamy is an excellent term for it.
“Women need empowerment, and always will, because women’s power itself does not exist”
Like misandry, simply because there is no word for it does not mean it does not exist. I had been approaching the issue from a standpoint of overt and covert power. Overt power being that of men and covert being that of women. Not having a word for it makes it that much more covert. The power of women is the power to control men. Those who are successful generally end up destroying the men in their lives.
“And the hell with NAWALT, in one way or another ALL heterosexual women practice hypergamy…”
This doesn’t matter. Even if NAWALT is true, the hypergamy gene (or trait) is the dominant trait and it is the most prevalent. In terms of evolution, I’m guessing that the women who were most successful at manipulating their men were the ones who were best protected and provided for and therefore the ones whose children were most likely to survive and breed. There may well be a recessive non-hypergamous gene (or trait). The total population of women may be viewed as a bell curve skewed to the right, with those on the far left not possessing the hypergamy gene. But this would make little difference in society as a whole.
TDOM
This is trully a great article, this Zeta Game series will change the relationship between men and women. Congratulations Paul, this is trully awesome.
I can’t wait to read the next article. The Zeta Game articles are very informative and useful in my marriage.
The only time I’ve heard of women not being Hypergamous was when their “mothering” instincts kicked in somehow towards a sick or broken husband. They apparently take care of their husbands like a mother would a child. The problem is, I’ve never seen it personally, only heard rumors of this behaivor. I’ve seen aspects of it when wives play at mothering their sick husbands, but then they walk into the next room and bitch and moan about their “sacrifice” and “burden” to an audience, so I don’t think it is done out of motherly nurturing instincts, just a show.
“This article is WEAK!!! just like all of elams crap”
sean moor, your send-up of an establishment feminist was absolutely brilliant! Very funny and spot-on! Now do a Nazi commandant!
Sean, your comments are WEAK and have no substance.
You have no wisdom to offer anybody, only insults.
What is your purpose here?
“This article is WEAK!!! just like all of elams crap”
*
Looks like elam didnt mind sticking that comment up.He’s been a vary busy body deleting every other words of wisdom i have written.Which he set out to do.When ever it suits his ego.
*
Heres one for you,B.R(short for Butt Ramming)GETS AIDS!!!!!!!
The reason Lord Elam lets your comments stay is because you expose yourself as a buffoon and a waste of intellectual time without him having to do anything.
WarHammer Axe
Paul-
I want my own peanut gallery of haters like yours. What am I doing wrong? I try to be a dick whenever I can, and here you are, always being level headed and respectful and you get all the cool haters. I swear its not fair. I want to be the controversial one!
sean moor, WarHammer Axe, whatever-your-name is, I suspect your original comment was deleted not because you disagreed, but because you didn’t bother to back it up with anything. You also mentioned that I expose myself “as a buffoon and a waste of intellectual time.” Can you maybe back that one up with anything concrete, like a quote from an article or comment that I wrote? Just trying to help your baseless attacks from getting deleted by basing them on something.
sean moor said:
Thanks, that’s invaluable wisdom.
@ Jabs
One word my friend.
Website.
Build it and they will come.
@ Merrick
I’m pretty sure sean moor/TnT are the same person, but I think WarHammer Axe was somebody else quoting him, and directing the words you quoted to him. sean moor could have never brought himself to type the sentence at the end of that post.
I think it was Warren Farrell who said, “Woman’s strength is her facade of weakness. Man’s weakness is his facade of strength.”
@ Jabberwocky,
“The only time I’ve heard of women not being Hypergamous was when their “mothering” instincts kicked in somehow towards a sick or broken husband.”
If you use Paul’s definition of hypergamy, a woman who mother’s her sick husband is exercising power over him. She is in complete control. so while she may not be leaving him for something better, she has assumed his power for herself. That would be one of the ultimate expressions of hypergamy.
TDOM
roger moore was 007, sean moor is 000 ( he even forget one letter at the end)
paul elam: u really should start to worry, a feminist told me too, that ur stuff is crap and all lies…haha
and i believe that u r sick. from our first conversation here i felt that u need professional help and not a webside…i am out of this conversations, sean. get a life. all the best, bonehead rulaZ with a Z.
Your rendezvous with TnT is only as far as the nearest mirror, though I don’t know where an ‘Eicrotch’ might be found. Just stick with posting from sean moor. That name has a better reputation here.
Just a note here. I anticipated problems along these lines when I started this site. No one is immune to it, Welmer had a heck of a time over at The Spearhead with some similar type personalities.
I will continue to spam out comments from sm, and now TNT. Just a suggestion to the people who come for the real discourse- starving trolls move on to where there is food, even if it takes them a while to figure out they need to.
Paul, sorry for defacing your site with my comments to sean moor, but I seriously found the guy funny in a way. Delete my posts if you want to clean up the mess.
Apologies from you hardly in order. And they are funny in a way. What I may do at some point in the future is set up another special page, like I did with FAM. Something like fucktard/personality disorder page.
I think it makes a point that, as we have here, we try to reason with the worst of our own, but that failing, we do what feminists won’t do with their worst, sequester them out of sensible company.
People like the last two (or one) are invariably destructive to good discourse.
And it is always tempting to engage them. We used to have a joke in the psych field. You always knew what patients had a personality disorder because they were the ones staff spent all their time talking about.
the universal drive in women to turn men into appliances, and whether that appliance is a dildo or an ATM
… or a human shield..
@ Retrenched
Absolutely.
Indeed, it is quite possible to force any woman you are connected to into more or less chasing her tail in circles with her hypergamous tendencies, leaving her to experience the frustration that she usually is the one to inflict. And it does not require scheming, manipulation, dishonesty or any of the other less savory aspects of non Zeta Game.
In fact, it demands that you do just the opposite of those things and operate only in honest, direct ways that scream self assurance and self awareness.
I will cross that bridge in the next article, Hypergamy Crossroads.
Exellent article paul, but I read the next article and I don’t understand the relation between choosing your values over a relationship and hypergamy. Can you make this a little more clear? Thanks.
Yes, I can. That will be part of the upcoming debate.
I used to refer to what is now obviously hypergamy as transactional love. In the latter context, I observed that if wife did anything at all that others outside the relationship would see as an act of goodwill, that she would characterize as justifiable payment for whatever she demanded.
I cooked your dinner, give me what I want
I did your laundry, give me what I want
I cared for “your” children, give me what I want
The term “give me what I want” became interchangeable with “make me happy”
Of course whenever circumstances were reversed I warranted nothing.
Even to an exaggerated extent. I spend 7 hours cleaning the kitchen, completely unnoticed, she sponge mops the floor in 15 minutes, the negotiation begins. Literally in those extremes.
Objectively this behavior appeared as the role of a child. Beyond the frustration of this kind of behavior. It seems that there is an expression for the need for fathering. Seldom mentioned in comments and articles and even in the male role is the father daughter bond. In as much as the father son bond is highlighted as deficient when it is infrequent or absent, I believe there is an equal deficiency that occurs with girls. It may lead to an exaggerated hypergamy.
I have found these kind of relationships to wholly lack intimacy, equality of respect and promoted unhealthy dutiful sex.
In contrast, it seems to me now that what is termed “Zeta Game” is in fact a mode and method of fathering to women, or a method of opting out of the role.
Paul:
“In fact, it demands that you do just the opposite of those things and operate only in honest, direct ways that scream self assurance and self awareness.”
I think it is possible that the “mothering” kicks in when the “daughtering” doesn’t work. The “broken husband” may be better represented as broken fathering. Which finally explains a saying that I have always found distasteful,
which now becomes a legitimate question. “whose your daddy”
Jabber:
The only time I’ve heard of women not being Hypergamous was when their “mothering” instincts kicked in somehow towards a sick or broken husband.”
I would really like to hear others thoughts on this!!
@ Keith
Excellent comment, and cuts right to the core of the next piece I am working on.
And this:
“Objectively this behavior appeared as the role of a child.”
Precisely. Women “force” men into the role of bad father. Or, as you said, that gambit failing, they will shift and become the autocratic, shaming mother, true to the transactional model.
Oh, and I don’t know if you intended the transaction to have dual meaning, but to me it does. Adler’s work is applicable here.
As to the “mothering” I think there is something to it, but cannot rule out the possibility that this is, in effect, just tending to a broken machine. I know how harsh that sounds, and I know that is not always the case.
My father died a lengthy and exhausting death from Alzheimer’s Disease and my mother took care of him to the last minute, I am sure taking some time off her own life to do it.
But my mother was way old school. I am not sure she can be compared to women these days.
Oh, and I don’t know if you intended the transaction to have dual meaning, but to me it does. Adler’s work is applicable here.
If by dual meaning your referring to harlot/heroine?
As to the “mothering” I think there is something to it, but cannot rule out the possibility that this is, in effect, just tending to a broken machine. I know how harsh that sounds, and I know that is not always the case.
In effect the machine is broken if it doesn’t play along. When the appliance rebels the authoritative role of control is mothering, not mechanic.
Paul,
thank you for a fantastic, eye opening article. I’m looking forward to the next one.
But my mother was way old school. I am not sure she can be compared to women these days.
It would seem your mother may have experienced a healthier relationship with her father, or was indeed following or fulfilling a paternal love, that may have been unexpressed in her youth. Of course in your mother’s time this is what people did.
I agree she cannot be compared, her timeline contained her in different ways.
It seems that these hypergamous relationships are expressed as the woman playing daughter/mother and projecting a role onto her partner of father/son.
Personally I had always thought this kind of shit should include a very large dowry for the expense of childrearing an alleged partner.
Currently I think it is better avoided altogether. This kind of profile leads to abusing an already corrupt legal system. I would advocate for much longer courting periods, if you are looking for a marital partner, these woman don’t know how to partner.
@ Y
You are most welcome and I am glad you enjoyed the piece.
@ Keith
No, I was referring to “transactional” in the sense of one, a literal transaction, as you laid out, but also a reference to Alfred Adler’s Transactional Analysis model. Adler developed a model that put people into one of three general states in communication.
Parent
Adult
Child
His contention was that at any given moment, interpersonally, we are all in one of these modes, of course with the preferred target being adult. Unfortunately, most people are generally in one of the other two states, especially in “intimate” relationships. And women have now been socialized for two complete generations to avoid the adult state wherever possible.
It just seemed a good fit with your post.
Paul, do you think that there are any risks (other than false accusations) in marrying a woman who makes your level of income or more?
Yes definitely I would agree with the dual application, and yes now I have to read Adler.
That model never worked well with me personally, in that I left my natural family at age nine. I did not seek a parent child role after that.
Additionally I came to loathe it in others. It greatly affected my traditional education, in that I refused to be parented by what I considered to be indoctrination bureaucrats.
I am very dismissive of the parent child roles, even my own parental role. I have always considered fathering to be a transitional role and not a fixed role. I prefer my own children to leave their concepts of fathering behind in their childhoods and to attempt to see me as an individual. I have always felt that over extended paternal an maternal roles are like closet homosexuals. Always functioning in a projected and contained paradigm for a perceived sense of safety. Of course closeted personalities always seem to function based on some form of entitlement. It may be that exchanging entitlement for responsibility is to big of a leap.
Sorry this topic has got my brain convulsing.
I’m impressed at the level of discourse on this site. There is always something to learn. I quite agree with describing women as children although I think that there are some that have made great efforts to be independant (so NAWALT). The worst children are the spoiled brats who are absolute tyrants to get whatever they want and are rewarded for their behavior. I hear ya keith.
“a woman who mother’s her sick husband”
I think this has more to do with socialization overcoming hypergamy. A traditional woman who takes great pride in her career as caregiver and at the pinacle of her life can not just give up in the most dire of circumstances. What will everyone think of her? By mothering her sick husband she is fullfilling her role as caregiver, it’s not the same as when her traditional husband is simply unemployed and no longer any financial use to her.
In the 1980′s my dad (raised in northern mining town and a tradesman in construction) was unemployed in a one horse town for almost 2 years before he was forced to leave. My mom (a RC french farm girl) really wanted to live out the rest of her life in this nice coastal community, which is why we moved there and she didn’t want to leave. My dad tried to go on the road but when he came back he became depressed because he realized his marriage was falling apart and he couldn’t get a job close to home. My dad got thrown out of the house for apparently a verbal threat. My mother continues to exaggerate her fear instead of answering difficult questions. I suspect that if there was any threat it was a reaction to imminent divorce and not the reason for it. My dad had to move far to get regular work, my mom had to start working. My mom remarried within 2 years to another regular joe with a job, where she could go back to staying home to cook, clean, garden and read.
A few years later my grandmother left my grandfather, because he was a grouchy old man. She admitted that she only began to think that it was acceptable for her after my mother divorced my dad.
I have talked with my mother, brother and sister about the details of these divorces and I tend to be quite upfront about difficult issues. Regardless of the complaints of living with a miserable old man, there was no attempts at reconciliation or counselling by either of the women, they just wanted out of their marriage because they were no longer happy.
It’s socially acceptable for women to live off the hard work of men and then dispose of them when they are no longer of use, the men get blamed for it. It’s not socially acceptable for anybody to just dump a family member when they are sick or disabled. It’s doubtful that woman would ever put her physical safety at risk to protect her injured or disabled husband, that’s not her role.
These divorces were initiated by very traditional women, shortly after no-fault divorce, when it started becoming socially acceptable because men were easy to blame. I suspect that they married young and realized they weren’t happy, so they did what was already socially acceptable, they divorced.
My dad never remarried and lived a simple life and saved his money for his kids. He worked in dirty and dangerous conditions for most of his life and paid for it with a number of illnesses and injuries that greatly shortened his life and reduced the quality of his last years. I was the only one with him when he died in march of this year.
@ Denis
I think you just made a case for what I described as closeted personalities.
The entitlements were held in higher regard than the relationship.
Although my belief is, the term NAWALT can only be determined after a forensic autopsy post-mordum. But hey at least I haven’t closed my mind to the possibility.
Last night I saw a whole flock of UFO’s crop circling, while enjoying beer and pretzels with my buddy jack the sasqautch. Hey, not all evenings are like that.
@ Denis
Truthfully Denis this rips my heart out.
“I was the only one with him when he died in march of this year.”
September was the month of my fathers passing, many years ago.
Most in my family never saw the man and only saw what they wanted.
WTF is going on at MND? It’s not “M” ND anymore?
@ denis
I was asking paul the same question one week ago and if there is any connection with his renewed efforts on this page here…he didnt answer me yet, maybe its not my business, lol…but I see it too, that MND has a lot of topics that arent typical men-orientated….
men need to organize the way womens groups have and get some results!
Something like fucktard/personality disorder page.
That’s what I like about you, Paul. You don’t mince words.
I suspect that Paul wouldn’t comment on MND.
When Chapin was originally removed from MND there was some concerns floating around. I didn’t have much concern at the time because they were still on-topic and regularly posting meaningful articles on men’s issues.
Then they announced Rudov, but there has barely been anything posted from him. Then they anounced the return of Chapin but there has barely been anything posted from him.
I don’t have a problem with MND covering other topics, but it just seems to me that it has now become Mens News Weekly or Mens News Bi-weekly. I suspect there is bigger politics at play.
Oh Crap!…Why, Why, Why? Insufficient explaination given to shut down a highly effective and prized website.
MND to Retire
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/28/mnd-to-retire/
“I plan to shut down MND operations over the next month. MND will restart again as a general interest website”
Yeah…. I read that article the moment it was posted yesterday evening and finished it just as bemused as I was when I initially saw the headline.
LaSalle says,
And then, after a meandering middle section that I had a hard time understanding, he abruptly gets back to the topic of the headline and says:
WTF?? By his own words, it already was general interest.
There must be something else going through his mind, because this makes no sense to me as an outside observer. From my perspective, there’s no reason or purpose for him to shut down MND; there must be reasons he isn’t making public. This is a sad loss.
has anyone considered external pressure from external agencies
Paul, just thought I’d drop in to say great work as always and keep it up. I’m reading everything, though I find myself commenting less these days – not because I don’t appreciate your work as much, as I most certainly do.
That’s what I’m thinking keith. Considering the rise of the conservative feminists competing for women’s attention, this may be a result of republican politics. I suspect the emboldened MRM is interfering with traditional chauvenism and that even Paul Elam may be the straw that broke the elephant’s back.
We’ll see if Paul gets his walking papers and if there are any future articles about mama grizzly.
Eincrou, you’ve exposed the confusion created by Lasalle perfectly. As much as I hate to say it…intellectual honesty is at stake here.
Hmm
I’ve always felt that the tendency for men to define their value to women in terms of how much providing and protecting they can offer is the very thing that drives female hypergamy.
I see this mentality frequently on display in mens issue forums, where you read posts by men practically wishing for some catastophe to befall society, clearly jonesing for the opportunity that such an event will bring to ride to the rescue of the many damsels who will be in distress. If it’s not that, then it’s the threat of Islam or the NWO that women just can’t see they need protecting from.
Well, if the only thing men believe they have to offer women are protection services and money then you can’t blame women for valuing and ranking men according to their utility.
Maybe we should stop defining ourselves by the jobs we do and embrace the other sides of who we are away from work, more. Friends, fathers, lovers . . .
@ResoluteMan
> Well, if the only thing men believe they have to offer women are protection services and money then you can’t blame women for valuing and ranking men according to their utility.
It’s funny; I never believed that I had anything to offer women, not even the ability to be a dildo on legs, a walking ATM, a butler, or a human shield. I figured I’d die a bachelor, and was made peace with that by the time I got out of college.
> Maybe we should stop defining ourselves by the jobs we do and embrace the other sides of who we are away from work, more. Friends, fathers, lovers . . .
No kidding. Like Chuck Palahniuk wrote in Fight Club, you are not your fucking job. As far as I’m concerned, the only appropriate answer to “What do you do?” is “None of your business”.
@ Mathew Gray…
I believe the question is usually “what do you do for a living?”
Answer: I breathe
@ keith
@ matthew
I think it depends on the country or even continent u live in…I come from europe, its pretty much the same here…first question is always: “what do u do for a living”
I was living in africa (namibia) for a couple of years…and believe me…some of my closest people had no idea what i do for a living…they wanted to find out WHO u r, not WHAT u r….I found that a very human approach to people. But obviously humanity is not the first/the most important thing when it comes to relationships between men and women…
This reminds me of female bodybuilders. When I was in chile the tv intervied a female bodybuilder and she declared that she cannot have a boyfriend that is less muscular than her. Hypergamy si something natural aparently.
Correct me if I’m wrong, men cluster by uniform. Suits don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with jeans. Even in Namibia.
@keith
sure…if it comes to “searching for mr right” women are all the same, all over the world…but even men are asking this “what do u do” Q all the time….but that i didnt find in namibia…and some women too…they just wanted to know u as a person first…all in all i got that Q not that often in africa…maybe it has to do with the industrial life style, driven by money in the first place in the so called “first world countries” …and that lifestyle made a large impact on womens behaviour, too
i think we can agree on that: the alpha male is most wanted.
personally, i want to break thru to that clichee, but mother nature made us like that somehow…men try to impress women, women choose the best fruit at the tree (the richest…lol…men try to find the most beautiful fruit^^).
the problem we have is: some women trained their skills to find the good ones and take advantages out of them. by all means. Thats where the problems start…and where do they end for a lot of men? bankruptcy, custody tragedies…society changes coz women are quicker to grab their chances, just as society is defined by them as “male”, too…and therefore an enemy…and men are left behind…society is unbalanced, unfair….more and more…from male`s perspective…thats what i am fighting against, and its just my own humble experience and observation…
and…after reading the article again…i can tell u in a very personal way that this “hypergamy” exists…its a fact…
when i was playing live a lot as a musician…well…”the gentleman enjoys, but keeps it secret”…haha…ladies all around…I can tell ya…but now…as a single father….(which obviously stands for “lower social status” somehow?) there are no groupies in sight…u know what i mean…women stopped to knock at my window at night^^…(or are they just afraid to wake up the kids??? i doubt that). Which means: the very same person can go from “up in the sky” to “rotten basement sinkhole” within a couple of days…and I have to say it: thats typical female behaviour…Mind: I am not complaining about my life, i am doin fine, I am NOT looking desperately for a new relationship….its just an observation of mine which I find shocking..and it will continue to inspire me writing my songs.
Love your work Paul.
I live that Chris Rock quote. There is nothing worse than having your dreams crushed by the person you love most. She delights in my failure – success would bring me more power. Of course too much failure would have negative consequences for her, so she has to manage this by tricks such as repackaging success as failure. In her world everything I want is “for me”, everything she wants is for “the family”. You are dead right about hypergamy, so many friends’ wives and girlfriends manage their lives and success all the time.
I was brought up by feminists to be something other than a man and consequently was no match for women. I’m 47 now, but it has only been since 40 that I’ve stopped blaming myself for not being good enough. Let’s hope we can spread the word so that more guys can take control of their lives and let’s hope that boys can be brought up to be good men, not assholes or suckers.
One more point: men are better looking than women. No, I’m not gay. Read Schopenhauer on this. http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html We find women sexually attractive, not because they are better looking but because we are programmed to like tits and bits. If guys put 10% of the effort into looking good that women do it would be obvious that we are better looking.
“Both get hot and bothered by what they hope to eventually have control over.”
This line, to me defines this entire post.
And it’s another post showing a lack of understanding of women. Your belief in why a woman does what she does, has very little to do with the actual reasons. It’s just your perception.
Women don’t get excited over men they hope or believe they can control. They get sexually excited by men they believe(at the time) they cannot control.
You are right however that women have no inherant power. The power, afforded to women is not due to women deliberately going for it, it is due primarly to the sexual vulnerability of men. Often women have no idea of this vulnerability, because they do not have it themselves. How could they ever understand?
Your perception, does not reflect the female reality, yet the posts here continue to presume they know female motivations and how men should respond. How can this help? other than to vent anger?
@ Annie
Your whimsical insights are about 40 years late. The very methods of observing a genders motivations was pretty much established by the feminist movement and women generally. The methods and observations have led to extensive legislation and laws that have served to curtail the quality of most mens lives.
and then along comes Annie, to set us all straight.
I disagree wholly with you, this article and the posts, exceeds womens understanding of themselves and their motivations. But I can certainly understand the discomfort women would feel in being exposed to this truth. It removes the mask of innocence and purity that most women love to use to hide behind and deceive others.
@Annie
I think you are agreeing with Paul, however, you resent the way he says it. The power women have over men is not only sexual, it is emotional and cultural as well. It may well be that the emotional and cultural power stem from the sexual, but that power exists in its own right.
Having not yet reached enlightenment, none of us fully understands “women” or “men” for that matter. Rather, we are trying to make sense of how we can deal with our relationships with women in such a way that we don’t get fucked over.
And yes we are angry, because we love women, but yet so much we were told about them is wrong. Being lied to and cheated does not make you happy.
Thank You John A for your response.
We’ve been all sold a bill of goods on who we are. But I don’t think society was built on who we actually are, it was built on a recognition on who we are, and what we need to control(withiin our own behaviour) to remain civilized.
I am agreeing with Paul about the sexual side, but am confused by where we think it comes from. I don’t think the sexual power comes from women. The emotional power I am just beginning to understand and probably does come from women and would really love to hear more thoughts on this. The cultural power I’m at a loss(other than unfair attitudes towards the justice system). What cultural power do we have?
Not just today, but ultimately in society?
@Keith
The feminist movement was reacting in anger, and their gender perceptions were based on observation and not understanding. Both men and women do this and both men and women are usually wrong.
I’d like to move past it and both you and I will struggle with that. So be it.
@ Annie
Sorry, I been around for a few years, I’ve seen the “reactions”. There’s a difference between anger and malice.
No men and women don’t do this. Women do it.
When women stepped up and asked for the vote, employment opportunities, equal pay, equal access, affirmative action, they got it.
When men ask for access to their children the courts backed by women give us the finger, and a list of accusations.
No Annie we both won’t struggle through this. I will. You however won’t, you will play your victim card and pretend it’s a struggle.
“What cultural power do we have?”
Two excellent books listed right on this page, The Woman Racket and The Manipulated Man. Another I would recommend is The Myth Of Male Power.
Then you can debate yourself.
“another post showing a lack of understanding of women” I think this post has an incredible understanding of women, just not a “preferred understanding”
The pedestal is crumbling.
@ Annie
Cultural power comes from constraints that society puts on men and from biased conventional views of men and women.
For example, society expects that men won’t hit women and most men don’t. This allows some women to hit bigger and stronger men without the bother of being hit back.
Another example is the assumption that women are more moral than men. Men lose out because the cultural assumption is that the woman would have been right. “He must have cheated”, “he must have hit her” or “he wasn’t a good father”. There is a presumption of male guilt that gives women power over men. Many men assume that they themselves are wrong because that precious princess could do no wrong.
This cultural power combined with legal power means that guys are not going to get a fair go in court.
Tell me about it, one thing I can’t stand is a man who cries over a women, and blames himself and says things like, “It was my fault”, “I stopped doing alot of bad shit because of this women”, “She would never cheat on me” and “She makes me a better man”, and even start crying like a fucking baby. I have been told that I am fucked up in the head, because I don’t cry like a little bitch and because I have my moral convictions on alot of matters, especially concerning abortion which is murder, and can care less about a womans whims and desires, or feelings in general. The sooner we free ourselves from the shackles of the “Matrix” that is feminism and the women’s control over men, the more happier and free we will become, and I hope our dream becomes a reality someday for all of us. These women will no one to blame but themselves for their own problems when the day comes that us Zeta Males will be, and they will that all we want is freedom, peace, and some fucking quiet