|
The Useless Young Male
by John Allington
2 April 2005
Loaded: 7/23/2003
Susan Reimer has some things to say about young men in the following
editorial:
YOUNG MEN ARE RUNNING FROM MARRIAGE
Orlando Sentinel; Orlando, Florida; Jul 1, 2003; Susan Reimer,
Sentinel Columnist;
You can read the entire article by going to http://www.orlandosentinel.com,
searching their archives and paying a couple of bucks. If you do so,
you will likely be astonished by what you read.
She can write these things in our effete Jewish press with no risk
to her career. Few will call her names for what she wrote.
Ms. Reimer begins:
Other than a 29-inch waist and a full head of hair, there
isn't much to recommend the twentysomething male.
He is footloose and fancy-free -- except for the fact that he
is likely to be living with his parents. It takes him longer to leave home
than his women friends, and he is more likely to return.
He is, of course, sexually active and therefore at increased
risk of unmarried fatherhood, but he doesn't especially like kids. He
considers them a financial burden and an irritant in any
relationship with the mother.
Substitute a few words -- say replace male with female -- and
replace 29-inch waist with 34B breasts and some of the other details and you would be
woman-bashing. You would not be carried in a major publication of our Jewish media
and they would gnash their teeth even here: Stormfront.
Ms. Reimer continues:
He is openly suspicious that a woman would try to trap him
with a pregnancy or that a one-night stand would result in a
pregnancy and a long-term parenting relationship with a woman he doesn't care
about and doesn't want to marry. This fear, however, doesn't keep him
from regularly waking up with a stranger.
Do young males have cause for suspicion? Let's sort this out.
Judeo-Feminism hit the scene forty years ago and no-fault divorce came about 10 years
later. Virtually every young male out there has heard horror stories of older
brothers, cousins, uncles and even their fathers being nearly ruined by divorce. Is it
possible that our useless young male has been paying attention? His jobs have been
exported to other countries at the direction of our greedy corporate bosses and his
women have been turned against him by Judeo-feminism. So why shouldn't he hang out
at one of his parents' houses and sportfuck the local hotties in his spare time?
Maybe we don't give this guy enough credit!
Humans respond to rewards and punishment and I would expect young
males to be no different. Judeo-feminism attacked the institution of marriage
and undermined the status of married men who felt duty-bound to support it. Women
expect more from men than ever before with the underlying threat that if they
don't get it, it's divorce court time. They are willing to do less than ever before
with the exception of a career, whose money is usually spent on them or on unnecessary
luxuries they, rather than their husbands, desire. These women tend to spend their
twenties in self-absorbed pursuits and then, after their prime and after having
put a few extra pounds onto their rears, can't figure out why the guys aren't
flocking to them - if in fact this is actually the case.
Ms. Reimer continues:
He has no biological clock because he can father children well
past middle age, so he is in no hurry to marry. He is looking for a
"soul mate," and he believes there is someone out there whom he is
destined to love.
If he finds her, he is also likely to find that the
relationship does not live up to this romantic ideal, but it will be easy enough to
divorce these days.
I have talked to a lot of men and I've never heard one tell me he
was looking for a soul mate. Men want an attractive woman who likes sex, is willing to
cook and clean and won't nag him to death. He has no romantic ideals, unless you
include in that sexual fantasies. But I don't think that is what Ms. Reimer had in
mind. Now this guy isn't putting off marriage because he hasn't found a soul mate --
that's the reason women cite. This guy's putting off marriage because (1) he can still
get sex and (2) because he knows marriage is risky for men.
Indeed, it is easy enough to divorce these days. Each state has a
Health Department that tracks divorce statistics, including who initiates the petition
for the dissolution of marriage. Those statistics reveal that it is women who initiate
divorce 65 to 70 percent of the time. I suspect that our useless young male may be
aware of this. That Ms. Reimer links divorce initiation to men reveals her to
be a disingenuous bitch.
Ms Reimer continues:
He is living an extended adolescence -- an adult-olescence --
and every immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed thing he does is
reinforced by the latest issue of his favorite men's magazine.
As I outlined in Part 3B of my essay,
women in their late twenties and early thirties have a few of their
own bad characteristics. They whine that there are no good men left even as
their e-mail inboxes overflow with messages from guys trying to get their
attention in the online dating scene. Moreover, for every men's magazine (FHM, Maxim,
Playboy) that plays to this irresponsible male, there are at least three that
cater to the self-absorbed urban slut (Self, Elle, Vogue, Allure, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Mademoiselle, Glamour, etc.)
Ms. Reimer continues:
"It's kind of an apocalyptic view," says Rutgers sociologist
David Popenoe, but one sketched for us by the research from the
National Marriage Project, a nonprofit, pro-marriage research
organization.
In taking stock of the state of matrimony, Popenoe and partner
Barbara Dafoe Whitehead found a "good dad-bad dad" dichotomy in
the profile of fathers. For every father who takes the 2 a.m.
feeding, packs lunches or helps with homework, there are biological
fathers running in the other direction.
It turns out our useless young male is not alone. Apparently, half
of the fathers out there are "bad dads" too! I would like to know: where exactly the
studies are documenting all of the women who fail to change their car's oil,
clean gutters, mow lawns and kill assorted household pests? It's as if when men are
home, all they do is recline on their couches, drink beer and watch ball games -- just
like their false portrayal in our Jewish media. They never do yard work, repair cars,
fix plumbing, build decks, or coach their child's soccer team.
Ms. Reimer continues:
"If you look at fathers in intact marriages, they are
certainly doing much more than their own fathers did, in terms of child care
and helping around the house and in establishing egalitarian
relationships with their wives.
"But if you look in the aggregate, men are withdrawing from
family life in various ways," says Popenoe. "Men are delaying marriage
longer. Relationships where there are out-of-wedlock births or
cohabitation with children tend to break up. Then there is the
high divorce rate. Add that up, and you get a very different
picture."
Let's face it guys, in aggregate, American men are a worthless bunch
of oxygen-wasting hominids.
Ms. Reimer continues:
What is the answer, especially if the 20- and 30-year-old male
is such poor marriage material? Popenoe is cautiously hopeful.
"We are beginning in this nation to talk about marriage more.
. . .And there is agreement that living with two biological married
parents is the gold standard for the well-being of children.
David Popenoe has figured out that two married biological parents is
the way to go. How many PhDs did this take? How many multi-hundred thousand dollar
research grants funded this vexing quest? The fact is that for a couple of
hundred years, Americans didn't talk about marriage, we did it. It wasn't perfect,
but it was the norm. Enter Betty Friedan and a collection of malevolent Jewish
culture wreckers who told women to put off marriage for a career; marriages equals
oppression; all men are potential rapists, etc. Many gullible women bought this line
of thinking.
Now women want it all. They want a career, self-actualization,
man-as-sperm-donor-and-diaper changer and they expect to get all of
this with no price. What more do they offer in return for all the additional
expectations they have imposed upon men? Other than careers, many offer less than
before: less attention, less gratitude, less sex and less respect.
Ms Reimer continues:
Women, for their part, are losing patience with this guy.
According to a Gallup poll, 40 percent of women in their 20s would
consider having a child on their own if, by their mid-30s, they had not
found a good man to marry.
Women are losing patience with this guy! What can we expect next, a
temper tantrum? A proliferation of sperm donor clinics? Go for it gals!
Television characters and assorted lesbians pull it off. Men, you have failed
your women. Shame on you! You treated them better than any other women on the
planet. You gave them the right to vote, minivans with 14 cup holders, central
air-conditioning, and the best maxi pads money can buy. You've acquiesced to
surrounding them in a legal cocoon of rights and entitlements that end up being used
against you. And now, they are losing patience with you!
Let me make something absolutely clear. American women, in
aggregate, are the most ungrateful bitches on the planet. This isn't an exaggeration.
I've traveled and I know this to be true. It isn't because there is anything unique
about American women. To the contrary, women are fundamentally the same throughout
the civilized world. But take the traits I described in Part One of my
essay and combine those traits with Judeo-American law and you get a high
frequency of Americanus Horiblis. Americanus Horiblis is a woman who sleeps
around in her twenties, settles for marriage to an inadequate guy in her thirties
for the purposes of sperm procurement and diaper-changing services, and divorces the
inadequate guy in her late thirties or early forties. Did I mention she got the house?
Welcome to Amerika.
Now, I want my readers to do a couple things.
First, I want you to imagine a comparable editorial being written
about women in the same tone in the mainstream media.
Can you imagine it? Mustering all of my objectivity, I honestly
cannot. I have never seen anything like it about women in a mainstream media source and I
doubt I could even find something like it on some "men's rights" internet site.
You all have to understand something. We live in an all-encompassing
matrix. A matrix? Yes, I know. The word has been worn a little recently. But
it's still an appropriate metaphor. Stay with me on this one.
Our matrix consists of a physical and sociological system which is
governed by
laws and cultural expectations which evolved over decades, and in
some cases,
centuries. On top of the European tradition of assigning women
relatively high
status, we find an omnipresent Judeo-feminist ethos and an
interlinked repressive
legal regime. This matrix, by both default and design, intimidates
men and extracts
their resources. This has gone on for so long that people now think
that it is
normal. That is, people think it is normal to read editorials
dismissing an entire
generation of men as useless without providing any comparable
critique of young
women and their behavior. We can blame the Jews for getting radical
feminism
rolling, but they are only a few percent of the population. Fifty
percent of the
population is female and they vote. They, just as much as the Jews,
are responsible
for the present legal regime and for promoting and supporting the
Judeo-feminist
ethos. They have lobbied for this regime and its spoils and exploit
its rules at every
opportunity. Even among our own, this feminist ethos has been
embraced and
normalized: Stormfront link.
[When Alex or I write that "most women -- not the elite, but the
majority -- will disappoint you," we aren't joking. We mean it. This is simply the
unvarnished truth. Their permissiveness and short-sightedness are toxic to sustainable
civilization. They promote decadence and thrive in its froth. More to the point:
decadence is both symptom and cause of decay in one thousand subtle ways.]
Now, I have a second request of you. Some day in the near future I
want you take the afternoon off of work if you can. I don't want you to take off a
Friday or right before a holiday or some other exceptional day. I want this day to
be a standard work day.
Next, I want you to drive around your community with a clear and
open mind. I want you to stop and go into businesses and look around. Or you can
take a stroll in the local shopping mall or down a street in a business district.
What will you see? Open your eyes. What you will see is an extraordinary number of
people not working in the middle of a work day when you are normally at work.
You will see old people driving slowly on the roads, getting in your way. You
will see sullen teenagers smoking cigarettes, outside the main entrance to the local
shopping mall. Why aren't they in school? You'll see literally thousands of
females, mulling about in the shopping malls, drug stores and Wal-Marts, each likely
spending some man's money on non-essentials. You'll see hostile minorities glowering at
you from their street corners and from their poorly maintained automobiles.
If you live in a major city or a large suburb, everywhere you look
you will see crowds of people. Most of these people are not taking late lunches.
They are not on coffee breaks, ill or graveyard shift workers. They are the
consumers. And you, white man, are the producer. You work at least 40 hours per week.
You pay for the geriatrics, whose AARP lobbies for increasing the size of their
Social Security checks. You pay for the sullen teenagers and the glowering hostile
minorities. And you pay for the women mulling about in the shopping malls who claim
you are failing them.
The old people think you drive too fast and can't understand why you
are always in a hurry, the teenagers think you don't let them have enough fun, and
some of the white women are thinking about a Caribbean trip, where they can
anonymously fuck dreadlocked Rastafarians. Every one of them is on the take one way
or another -- and they want you to give a bit more. You, white man, are terribly
disappointing them -- all of them. You're a racist, probably an anti-Semite, a
sexist, a homophobe and being straight, you're probably wearing unfashionable clothing
as you read this. Now, your younger members are even balking at the notion of marrying
our country's spoiled young females. What is your problem, white man?
You need to work harder!
White man, our problems are large. We don't just need an expulsion
of 3 percent of our population. We don't just need to change one or two laws and
call it good. We need to wipe the fucking slate clean and start over. Do you
understand me? It's that bad. We're going to need a whole new set of rules to govern our
future society. Those rules will have to conform to the principle that those who
produce dictate the allocation of their resources and those who consume are grateful for
what they've been given and demand no more. That this is a radical concept for
most Americans shows just how screwed up our thinking has become. Until that time,
screw the current regime and its parasites!
Women and children consume resources. For all of recorded history,
this was pretty much understood. Various societies awarded men who supported women
and children (i.e., shared resources) higher status. Those societies
recognized the burden assumed by men for undertaking this endeavor. As part of the
arrangement, their women were expected to remain faithful (so that their resources
would not be used to support another man's child) and their children were expected to
obey them. The women would never have been allowed to mate with a man, bear
children, leave and take possession of his resources. For thousands of years, this
made sense. This system coincided -- not coincidentally -- with human progress in all
arenas. But starting in the second half of the 20th-century, that system changed
for reasons discussed above.
A woman can now marry a man, bear his children, leave, get a lawyer,
and extract resources from the man for the next 22 years (most states will force
a divorced man to pay for college expenses). She can kick him out of his house,
seize his bank accounts, file restraining orders against him, etc. The married man
now clearly enjoys little (if any) "status advantage" over the single man. This
is especially so among younger men. In addition, our married man is the butt of jokes
on television commercials. His wife makes fun of him in polite company and
delights in speaking of him in a mildly contemptuous tone. Think tanks claim that he is a
failure as a father. Women's magazines contain instructions on how to manipulate
him. He masters the art of self-deprecating humor to try to get a laugh out
of his gelded position. He has no legal protection against the capricious woman.
He's a slow learner, but now maybe, just maybe he's figuring this all out.
If what Ms. Reimer says is true, then this is a very good
development. A good development, you ask? Yes. Political revolutions are not initiated by
over-mortgaged, androgynous, minivan-driving males who spend much of
their free time supervising their tots at McDonald's "Playland." They start
among young, disgruntled men. Ms. Reimer doesn't begin to understand the
implications of the social trends she critiques.
JOHN ALLINGTON
|