Another excellent show, Gents. The emphasis on the tradcons is important, however tiresome, because they do fool a lot of people into thinking that they are doing something about the problem when they do nothing (but lose). It deceives and precludes a lot of men from more effective action.
One word of caution, perhaps: We should be careful about suggesting hat women should work in gainful employment. I think the evidence is clear that it makes them more prone to divorce. It strikes me that what is critical about the dowry is not the money but the contractual nature . I assume it works best as a contract between parents or fathers or the bride's father and the groom, but no doubt Shah knows more about that than I do.
I'm actually torn about this one, Stephen. In principle, I don't like the idea of women working to support families, and would 100% agree with your position except that for the vast majority a single income won't support marriage and children, nor home ownership. I think that situation has been intentionally created by our government with resounding success. I don't see us squeezing that toothpaste back into the tube anytime soon.
True. This is part of the poison from feminism, by flooding the workforce with women and driving down male wages. This forces many women to work who would prefer not to. I feel sad when I see elderly women working in supermarkets (or worse), making ends meet rather than being home with grandchildren. I suppose one answer is to simply make men and everyone aware of this — yet another unintended consequence of “gender equality”.
AGREED, the case can be made that w0e-MEN in the workforce are more likely to cheat. So, while I would agree with w0e-MEN working & contributing to the family finances, I also feel that they should only work jobs that don't take them away from their family and where they're not in contact with a lot of MEN. As JoachimR inadvertently illustrates MEN'S jobs & education should be MORE important than w0e-MEN'S because MEN DON'T have the choice, we are expected to be providers. As for educated w0e-MEN I would say they are usually more arrogant & indoctrinated, so in fact I believe a NON educated w0e-MAN would potentially have more humility than an educated idiot.
Bravo! I believe this #2 with Shah trounced the on-its-own-awesome #1.
Women don't get their supposed "fair share" for no other reason than that they're incapable of holding up their share of life's burdens.
Common sense acknowledges that females are almost universally burdens on families and society, which is what justifies the dowry system (only a very small cohort of rich and/or smoking-hot women could justify bride prices). What we've done in eliminating dowry has been to simply replace it with indirect, taxpayer (again, read 'male') funded, welfare benefits.
It's time for all men to expect all women to demonstrate awareness of and appreciation for the degree to which men shoulder their female burdens.
Thanks for the promo, Paul. This interview, like the first one, should be at the heart of every discussion about not only men in general but also men and marriage in particular (although marriage, as I say, is primarily about children and community). The conversation included so many related topics that it's not easy for me to remember all of them, so I'll choose one.
No less important to challenge than the "romantic" notion of marriage is the "evolutionary" notion of maleness (and femaleness). I'm glad that you've done so. Both notions have become conventional wisdom; people refer to them without even considering their legitimacy, let alone their moral and political implications. I reject on moral (and theological) grounds the notion that men are "disposable" or "expendable." I keep hearing that it doesn't matter how many men are killed in war, for instance, as long as enough women survive to renew the population. Trouble is, women can't do that alone (not yet, anyway). The only solution would be to adopt polygamy (in the form of polygyny) on a colossal scale. And yet no historical or anthropological evidence indicates that this would be a realistic plan. Polygamy is a common form of social organization, it's true. And, in polygamous societies, a few men do marry many women (up to four among Muslims), which means that they have more children than monogamous couples. But these men are the richest men, not ordinary men (who could not afford to support several wives and their children). On the reductive (and dehumanizing) grounds of social Darwinism, you could argue that polygamy passes on the inherited traits of very successful or powerful men and thus improves the genetic "stock" but not that it would ensure demographic continuity of society as a whole. Even if it could, however, the result would be very hard to accept on moral grounds. It would negate the humanity not only of men, after all, but that of women as well.
Evolutionary theory (as I hear it advocated in the public square) could lead to the kind of society that Margaret Atwood described in "The Handmaid's Tale," which was itself a feminist parable about Nazi ideology. The Lebensborn program set up stud farms where genetically fit SS officers mated with as many Aryan women as possible. (In conquered territories, moreover, the Nazis also stole children who looked Aryan, thus adding to the race both in quantity and quality.) But how many women would tolerate, even under dire circumstances, a system that turns women into breeding machines and men, including their own sons, into war machines?
The answer is not entirely hypothetical. After World War I, many European women on both sides were left either without husbands or without even the hope of finding husbands. They could have agitated for the introduction of polygyny. But they didn't. Those who did find men could have volunteered to share them with other women. But, by and large, they didn't. The residue of religious tradition prevented those solutions. Twenty years later, the Nazis liberated themselves from whatever was left of Christian morality. But even then, there was widespread and open disapproval of the Lebensborn program (which was intended to increase healthy racial stock) along with euthanasia (which was intended to decrease unhealthy racial stock).
By the way, what is Shah's full name? Without that, I can't find anything that he's published. Also, are transcripts available for these videos?
As always, Paul, you add meaningful insight and perspective to this conversation. I share (vigorously) your pespective on the biodeterminist's nonsense about male disposability. In order to follow their logic you must remain in complete denial of the massive infrastructure (created and maintained by men) required to safely birth a single child, or to conduct a marriage ceremony for that matter.
I don't have any more info on Shah than you do, sorry to say. His YouTube work is all I've known about. I do hope to learn more in the days ahead. I think he'll be a significant voice for men in the future.
Thank you both for your work and this discussion. The fact that women had to bring a lot into the marriage is well forgotten and I wasn't aware of it either.
However I couldn't fully agree with your criticism of the "men have to earn their value, women already have it when they are in their early twenties" standpoint.
I don't think the argument is about your intrinsic value as a human being. That is a question that needs to be answered separately depending on your philosophical and theological viewpoint.
The argument is usually made in the context of the dating market and in the context of society in general. There it definitely is the case that a man has to prove his value by being successful financially and otherwise. That was always the case even in older societies and also in subcultures where the intrinsic value of every human being is asserted, like in a church.
You better learn some way to bring home the bacon (either by literally bringing home the bacon via hunting or because you earned some other thing and traded it) or your chances of being attractive to women and having offspring goes down quite a bit.
Women on the other hand are attractive for the most part due to their youth, looks and health. Of course they can make themselves even more attractive in the dating market by being diligent, hardworking and educated. This can show a man that she will be able and willing to take care of kids and the house and also bring in money when kids are getting older.
So while I think this way of thinking can go too far, completely dismissing it is also wrong and basically wishful thinking.
While I will agree with you that MEN don't have a choice, and we are expected to be providers, I would remind you that w0e-MEN in the workforce are making it harder for MEN to fulfill that role. As for educated w0e-MEN I think they are more likely to be WHORES. My mother went to an ALL-GIRLS college for nursing and became a nurse. See? In that context I would agree with you, BUT I don't think it's good for w0e-MEN to go to coed colleges or to seek power positions in life. I resent w0e-MEN having choices that MEN don't
Another excellent show, Gents. The emphasis on the tradcons is important, however tiresome, because they do fool a lot of people into thinking that they are doing something about the problem when they do nothing (but lose). It deceives and precludes a lot of men from more effective action.
One word of caution, perhaps: We should be careful about suggesting hat women should work in gainful employment. I think the evidence is clear that it makes them more prone to divorce. It strikes me that what is critical about the dowry is not the money but the contractual nature . I assume it works best as a contract between parents or fathers or the bride's father and the groom, but no doubt Shah knows more about that than I do.
I'm actually torn about this one, Stephen. In principle, I don't like the idea of women working to support families, and would 100% agree with your position except that for the vast majority a single income won't support marriage and children, nor home ownership. I think that situation has been intentionally created by our government with resounding success. I don't see us squeezing that toothpaste back into the tube anytime soon.
True. This is part of the poison from feminism, by flooding the workforce with women and driving down male wages. This forces many women to work who would prefer not to. I feel sad when I see elderly women working in supermarkets (or worse), making ends meet rather than being home with grandchildren. I suppose one answer is to simply make men and everyone aware of this — yet another unintended consequence of “gender equality”.
AGREED, the case can be made that w0e-MEN in the workforce are more likely to cheat. So, while I would agree with w0e-MEN working & contributing to the family finances, I also feel that they should only work jobs that don't take them away from their family and where they're not in contact with a lot of MEN. As JoachimR inadvertently illustrates MEN'S jobs & education should be MORE important than w0e-MEN'S because MEN DON'T have the choice, we are expected to be providers. As for educated w0e-MEN I would say they are usually more arrogant & indoctrinated, so in fact I believe a NON educated w0e-MAN would potentially have more humility than an educated idiot.
Bravo! I believe this #2 with Shah trounced the on-its-own-awesome #1.
Women don't get their supposed "fair share" for no other reason than that they're incapable of holding up their share of life's burdens.
Common sense acknowledges that females are almost universally burdens on families and society, which is what justifies the dowry system (only a very small cohort of rich and/or smoking-hot women could justify bride prices). What we've done in eliminating dowry has been to simply replace it with indirect, taxpayer (again, read 'male') funded, welfare benefits.
It's time for all men to expect all women to demonstrate awareness of and appreciation for the degree to which men shoulder their female burdens.
Thanks for the promo, Paul. This interview, like the first one, should be at the heart of every discussion about not only men in general but also men and marriage in particular (although marriage, as I say, is primarily about children and community). The conversation included so many related topics that it's not easy for me to remember all of them, so I'll choose one.
No less important to challenge than the "romantic" notion of marriage is the "evolutionary" notion of maleness (and femaleness). I'm glad that you've done so. Both notions have become conventional wisdom; people refer to them without even considering their legitimacy, let alone their moral and political implications. I reject on moral (and theological) grounds the notion that men are "disposable" or "expendable." I keep hearing that it doesn't matter how many men are killed in war, for instance, as long as enough women survive to renew the population. Trouble is, women can't do that alone (not yet, anyway). The only solution would be to adopt polygamy (in the form of polygyny) on a colossal scale. And yet no historical or anthropological evidence indicates that this would be a realistic plan. Polygamy is a common form of social organization, it's true. And, in polygamous societies, a few men do marry many women (up to four among Muslims), which means that they have more children than monogamous couples. But these men are the richest men, not ordinary men (who could not afford to support several wives and their children). On the reductive (and dehumanizing) grounds of social Darwinism, you could argue that polygamy passes on the inherited traits of very successful or powerful men and thus improves the genetic "stock" but not that it would ensure demographic continuity of society as a whole. Even if it could, however, the result would be very hard to accept on moral grounds. It would negate the humanity not only of men, after all, but that of women as well.
Evolutionary theory (as I hear it advocated in the public square) could lead to the kind of society that Margaret Atwood described in "The Handmaid's Tale," which was itself a feminist parable about Nazi ideology. The Lebensborn program set up stud farms where genetically fit SS officers mated with as many Aryan women as possible. (In conquered territories, moreover, the Nazis also stole children who looked Aryan, thus adding to the race both in quantity and quality.) But how many women would tolerate, even under dire circumstances, a system that turns women into breeding machines and men, including their own sons, into war machines?
The answer is not entirely hypothetical. After World War I, many European women on both sides were left either without husbands or without even the hope of finding husbands. They could have agitated for the introduction of polygyny. But they didn't. Those who did find men could have volunteered to share them with other women. But, by and large, they didn't. The residue of religious tradition prevented those solutions. Twenty years later, the Nazis liberated themselves from whatever was left of Christian morality. But even then, there was widespread and open disapproval of the Lebensborn program (which was intended to increase healthy racial stock) along with euthanasia (which was intended to decrease unhealthy racial stock).
By the way, what is Shah's full name? Without that, I can't find anything that he's published. Also, are transcripts available for these videos?
As always, Paul, you add meaningful insight and perspective to this conversation. I share (vigorously) your pespective on the biodeterminist's nonsense about male disposability. In order to follow their logic you must remain in complete denial of the massive infrastructure (created and maintained by men) required to safely birth a single child, or to conduct a marriage ceremony for that matter.
I don't have any more info on Shah than you do, sorry to say. His YouTube work is all I've known about. I do hope to learn more in the days ahead. I think he'll be a significant voice for men in the future.
Thank you both for your work and this discussion. The fact that women had to bring a lot into the marriage is well forgotten and I wasn't aware of it either.
However I couldn't fully agree with your criticism of the "men have to earn their value, women already have it when they are in their early twenties" standpoint.
I don't think the argument is about your intrinsic value as a human being. That is a question that needs to be answered separately depending on your philosophical and theological viewpoint.
The argument is usually made in the context of the dating market and in the context of society in general. There it definitely is the case that a man has to prove his value by being successful financially and otherwise. That was always the case even in older societies and also in subcultures where the intrinsic value of every human being is asserted, like in a church.
You better learn some way to bring home the bacon (either by literally bringing home the bacon via hunting or because you earned some other thing and traded it) or your chances of being attractive to women and having offspring goes down quite a bit.
Women on the other hand are attractive for the most part due to their youth, looks and health. Of course they can make themselves even more attractive in the dating market by being diligent, hardworking and educated. This can show a man that she will be able and willing to take care of kids and the house and also bring in money when kids are getting older.
So while I think this way of thinking can go too far, completely dismissing it is also wrong and basically wishful thinking.
While I will agree with you that MEN don't have a choice, and we are expected to be providers, I would remind you that w0e-MEN in the workforce are making it harder for MEN to fulfill that role. As for educated w0e-MEN I think they are more likely to be WHORES. My mother went to an ALL-GIRLS college for nursing and became a nurse. See? In that context I would agree with you, BUT I don't think it's good for w0e-MEN to go to coed colleges or to seek power positions in life. I resent w0e-MEN having choices that MEN don't