Understanding what vetting does and does not do

There’s a “married red pill” post going around about how “vetting doesn’t work and why boundaries are way better” which has some good points though I disagree with a substantial amount.

I’ll quote a few parts of that post. Click if you want to read more.

Vetting is the relationship strategy where a man takes a list of values and qualities he prefers in women and uses it to assess the viability of the woman he is currently dating so that he can know if she is worth committing to over the long term. The quintessential strategy for the type of men who readily identify with being traditional and conservative within a modern and liberal society. Note, these are little ‘l,’ and little ‘c.’ This isn’t about tribal politics, this is about men. The vetting strategy is thrown around as if its the same strategy men have used throughout history, when in reality it’s a horrible mental model; a narrative guys use to provide comfort for the grim reality that relationships all end, and most end well before the man is ready to move on, or his children have had the full biological father experience.

I think this is overestimating the purpose of vetting. I’ve written a lot about vetting before and how it can be used.

Vetting, especially for Christians, is for 3 primary purposes:

  • It seeks to compare past behavior against present behavior to ascertain if someone is actually following Christ or doing it in name only.
  • It also seeks to understand if a woman is a good fit for your mission in following Christ
  • It also can possibly an early indicator about readiness for marriage.

Vetting is sort of like a job interview or background check in a sense (though you do not want to come off like this in person!). Someone following Christ or not following Christ will have certain qualities and values. Likewise, someone who wants a job but has bad past employment history (lack of being able to continually hold a job, lazy, etc.) is a much worse candidate than someone who doesn’t. There are exceptions, but the rules generally hold. That does not automatically make the person with a better employment history a perfect candidate: they could just be good at hiding things and be a terrible employee down the road.

Clearly you want an applicant that fits the job also: if you’re a missionary you want a woman who is on board with going out an evangelizing. If you’re mission is men’s ministry, you need a wife who is on board with you meeting men often during the week and doing life with them in and outside of your house. There are some women who can slip through the cracks, but for the most part this catches the vast majority of lukewarm Christians who attend Church every Sunday and say they are following Christ, but their behavior elsewhere is lacking in obedience to Christ.

To summarize: Generally, you’re able to eliminate the bad candidates straight off the bat. Thus, the goal of vetting for both men and women should be to eliminate the inconspicuous bad candidates before you waste both of your time.

Vetting is a horrible strategy for the following reasons:

  • Men do not know what they want in life. Men have a wonderful ability to rationalize what the world offers, transforming it what men wanted all along. A vetting list is guesswork and post hoc rationalization.
  • Vetting a woman is vetting for values. The question is, whose values? Men today are instilled with feminine values, created by and for women to meet their own needs, not his.
  • Vetting only works if everyone is doing is immunized from everything else.
  • Vetting for values is a narcissistic fantasy, and serve to hide the true nature of women and men in order to live in the narrative it presents. By the time the masks come off it’s too late.
  • Vetting creates an ego investment, where a man ignores anything that is outside of his vetted criteria. If the list is wrong, it’s an attack on a mans ego, and he will fight tooth and nail to protect it.
  • Even if the masks are off, and humans are naked and honest in their interactions (which they aren’t) vetting offers a snapshot into someones values, not a longitudinal assessment. It has the same longevity as an MBTI assessment; it’s astrology for the educated.
  • Vetting is often done to the exclusion of actual relationship strategies. Boundary enforcement is far superior and doesn’t require a lifetime of instilling feminine values in a man in order to understand them.

These might apply to secular, but many don’t really apply much to Christians.

  1. For Christians, God’s mission is everything.
  2. The values and qualities we vet are on God’s marital roles and responsibilities and Christ-like behavior. These don’t change.
  3. One I will agree with
  4. Not really.. if you use it as a tool to expose areas where speech and action don’t match up it’s actually taking off the mask.
  5. If it’s a Biblical list then such a list has no room to be wrong
  6. True, which is why vetting is only a first step.
  7. I disagree. Vetting should be like a first interview or background check that you find out over the first couple weeks to months of knowing someone.

So maybe 2 of the list apply.

Vetting is not mutually exclusive with “relationship strategies” which for Christians should line up with the Bible. It’s pretty easy to see that in many relationships there are many men and husbands that are dating or married to women/wives who do not respect them by their actions (even if they may call themselves Christian) and by extension are not submissive or obedient and are rebelling against God.

If you are dating and a woman is not respecting you then you can call her out and see if she changes. If she doesn’t then it may not be a good idea to remain in a relationship with her since it would only get worse in marriage. If she does, then maybe she is teachable and possibly a good helpmeet for you. If that happens in a marriage, obviously you generally have a lot more to learn about breaking dysfunctional cycles of behavior and learning about becoming a strong masculine Christ-like leader. The process of teaching her that disrespectful behavior is unacceptable starts with small things and gets to the big ones over time: the goal of Christ’s love toward the Church that husbands are to emulate is for the purpose of sanctification.

Overall, vetting is great. But it’s only a first step as you need to actual see if a woman actually on board with taking God’s Word seriously and if she is a good fit for you personally.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Understanding what vetting does and does not do

  1. theasdgamer says:

    Vetting can be used to determine whether or not a woman has been properly trained. Then you know how much training she will need from you.

  2. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    The part that worries me about vetting is that it applies to the person as they are now. Her female buddies do have a lot of influence and it may not be good. I have to wonder how many “I’m not happy” divorces stems from female influence outside the marriage.

  3. You Vet the a house purchase, but that doesn’t mean you don’t buy Insurance. The argument works a bit too much on strawman approaches in the original set of posts.

  4. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    LG,
    I don’t think we can buy wife insurance. If Lloyd’s of London even offered it, no doubt the premiums would be staggering.

  5. The main fault of marriedredpill is his perspective. He says that “men don’t know what they want” and that “in reality, most men are letting life happen to them”. If You think this through, then men should not choose their wives at all. “Vetting a woman is vetting for values. The question is, whose values? Men today are instilled with feminine values, created by and for women to meet their own needs, not his.” Goes in the same direction. This is true for some men, maybe many men, or even most men, but that does not mean, that vetting is useless for those, who thought their goals and values through. And: If we use boundaries, don’t they come with the same question? Won’t men, who vet for the “wrong” values, set the “wrong” boundaries as well?

    He also says that “the grim reality that relationships all end, and most end well before the man is ready to move on, or his children have had the full biological father experience.” It is true, that all relationships end, but some end with the death of one partner at a ripe age, having spent much quality time with the grand children. Sadly though, this is no longer the norm. The logical consequence of his perspective is, that men should not marry at all. On a societal level I can understand both viewpoints, but wouldn’t it be more clear and honest, to write against marriage than against vetting?

    He says that “Vetting is often done to the exclusion of actual relationship strategies.” This may be true in his social environment and if so, this is “problematic”. There is, however, no theoretical necessity for it to be this way. In my virtual environment, vetting is just one strategy among others, the people who encourage it usually encourage increasing Your own attractiveness and reassessing Your own values and taking a stand for them as well.

    In that sense, that article is a valuable pointer to the limitations of vetting.

  6. Bee says:

    Vetting is a tool, a good one. Setting boundaries and leading firmly is also a good tool. Compliance testing is also a good tool. Christian men looking for a wife should use all 3 tools.

  7. lastmod says:

    According to the man-o-sphere….even the Christian one, it doesn’t work. If she had a sex partner before you…..nope, she should be dumped. If she ever did anything wrong in life…dump her. According to them, you have to run her social security number, do a massive background check……interview her third grade teacher….anything that could be construed as her “fulfilling her evil female nature”…..dump her. If you are not a Christian,use her for sex…dump her, and label her a “slut”

    Also…..we have enough evidence that there are no “good women left” according to them…..so its useless anyway. Then we have the comments telling everyone to do this. Which is it?

    The fact that is never taken into consideration is that the woman you are “vetting” to be your future wife may not even want to date you, get to know you, or even find you remotely desirable because this rare gem probably has a billion suitors already, and chances are…..you are not going to be the one she likes. Solution from the ‘sphere “move on, there are plenty” but then again in the same comment section “there are none left”

    does anyone see this confusion? No, most of you would not. It will again be deflected that I am “bitter” and women have this natural selection to not be involved with “no good men” and at the same time men who live in reality know that the men purporting this are actually the white knights.

    Here, take this ‘hopeless’ situation and make it work…..and if it doesn’t “you’re bitter, you must be ugly…..but looks don’t matter…or the usual ‘living in a basement, with no career / life / skills / potentials and not trusting god enough”

    The ones it did work for are not in the lower 80% which you all never accept but then do accept depending on when the argument / defense suits you

  8. lastmod says:

    I’m sitting in a packed high end coffee house here in the downtown of my city. Fully admit I am one of the oldest persons here (I am 49 btw). Lets’ play just a fun round of the 80 / 20 thing. First the staff. Average looking guy working the bar. Ignored by the rest of the female staff who are constantly being flirted with by EVERY guy…..its like they all read the same Roosh book or watched the same exact video on “how to be confident around women”

    The women customers don’t even say thank you to the guy who makes their overpriced drink…they just take it and walk away….but guess what….the staff who is busing tables, a very above average looking dude………..gets “oh this shop is so amazing…I’m Danica btw…..” offering her hand, smiling………..it’s funny to watch.

    I am being ignored because of my age. As I should be.

    Most younger guys are even being ignored…….these guys are far from losers. They know how to dress…..hair decently cut or don’t have the personality of a board. Even the ones who are attempting to flirt, or chat are being ignored, or brushed off. The top 20% who even have their headphones on are being “disturbed” by women “Oh……hey…..how are you???? Umm, just wanted to ask you if I could sit here / where did you get your shirt / you are just the most amazing guy I have seen in awhile”

    You can say well, that’s California…in the south, women don’t do that…….and I’ll concede that its probably a bit more advanced out here……I have been all over this country…..its everywhere……..yes, even in Texas.

    I wish I had a solution…..but the one that will probably work (and no one will do) is to ignore them all. Perhaps that will force a hand by women to bring their standards down a notch or two on the looks level. Studies have shown that “good looking people: are assumed to be better people, friendlier, have better jobs or future prospects, and are somehow worth more

    And this is expressed in the place called “american church” moreso where the cultured is copied today, muscled up and driven home than ever.

    but looks don’t matter. you just need confidence……

  9. Joe2 says:

    The top 20% who even have their headphones on are being “disturbed” by women “Oh……hey…..how are you???? Umm, just wanted to ask you if I could sit here / where did you get your shirt / you are just the most amazing guy I have seen in awhile”

    of guy good

    LOL – very true. The sad reality for the bottom 80% is that the top 20% retain their good looks as they age. There is no reset button. If a guy was in the bottom 80% when he was 20, he’ll remain in the bottom 80% when he is 25, 30, 40, 50, 60+ So if he should move to an active retirement community, he’ll be ignored by the other women.

  10. Novaseeker says:

    Strategies for the top 20% are different for strategies for those not in the top 20% — that’s obvious, and no-one ever claimed otherwise. Best case is to become top 20%. If you can’t do that, then you adopt a different strategy.

    But the reality is that much, much, much more than 20% of men are in relationships, getting married and so on. Look at the stats of never married men at age 50: https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-shows-percentage-of-people-your-age-are-married. That is based on 2015 Census Bureau data, so it isn’t out of date. 82% of 50 year old men have been married at least once.

    So if you’re in the situation of not having any woman ever be attracted to you ever and never having any relationship … it’s not that you’re not in the top 20%. Statistically, it’s that you’re in the bottom 20%, because by age 50 82% of US men have been married at least once.

  11. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Nova,
    The statistic that your argument relies on is flawed because it looks backwards. It does not take into account Tinder and accelerating hypergamy. We are headed to a situation where women will find only the top five percent of men attractive.

    Jason,
    Get out of California. Twenty years ago, I talked to a guy who visited his son in Portland OR. All the men had left the metro area for lack of jobs and the women were thirsty. Ten years before that, I heard similar rumors about San Francisco. Women have adapted to demographics to make themselves scarce.
    If you get out of California, the women can only improve and the cost of living will definitely improve for surprisingly similar pay. Also, you won’t have to deal with broken glass three stories high in the Financial District when the next earthquake hits.

  12. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Jason,
    I had another thought. It sounds to me that, twenty years ago, you had little trouble attracting women. It’s not that you changed, they did. I can understand your frustration. I have to deal with it too.

  13. Novaseeker says:

    The statistic that your argument relies on is flawed because it looks backwards. It does not take into account Tinder and accelerating hypergamy. We are headed to a situation where women will find only the top five percent of men attractive.

    Headed, yes, but not there now. If a man, like Jason, has experienced what he has it has nothing to do with Tinder or 20%. That was the point.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    It sounds to me that, twenty years ago, you had little trouble attracting women. It’s not that you changed, they did.

    Actually that’s not how he has ever described his history, fuzzie. I think you are projecting your own experience, which may be different, onto Jason. Jason has said that women have never found him attractive and he was never able to get dates, despite being tall, being a bartender, etc. Was that your experience? If not, then your experience is different from what he at least has said his was.

  15. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Nova,
    If he was a bartender, he was turning down more than he was accepting. The point is, the sexual marketplace was far different twenty years ago. It was far more accepting of men. Hence, your statistic is flawed in that it looks backward. Fifty year old men were thirty then. The ones that are thirty now won’t be fifty for another twenty years and that will yield a different result.

    There is something that has been rattling around in my head the last few days. Eight thousand years ago, for every man who reproduced, more than seventeen women were reproducing. Since this was at the dawn of civilization, there is nothing that tells us how hypergamy on this scale was resolved. Could it be that modern women want to take us back to that?

  16. @ fuzzie

    There is something that has been rattling around in my head the last few days. Eight thousand years ago, for every man who reproduced, more than seventeen women were reproducing. Since this was at the dawn of civilization, there is nothing that tells us how hypergamy on this scale was resolved. Could it be that modern women want to take us back to that?

    That’s generally because many men died in wars, poor hygiene, and poor medical care, and the powerful men (kings) that had harems disproportionately increased the stats compared to the average man.

    It is true that it is increasingly becoming a trend that some women would want to share a popular or powerful man rather than be with a peon. I doubt it would go back to that type of ratio though.

  17. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Deep Strength,
    I don’t think a pat answer is going to serve here. How could a man at the dawn of civilization produce enough to support seventeen women? Warfare did not exist on the present day scale. Hygiene and medicine would adversely affect women. A village headman could not support a harem. This is an historical mystery. Still, any woman who would consciously want this would be off her rocker.

  18. AngloSaxon says:

    How on earth can they know that for sure. How could any civilisation survive giving the vast majority of men no chance to acquire a wife? We’ve had feminism for about a century ish and our societies already have pathetic birth rates and marriage rates. Dysfunction can only work for a while.

  19. Novaseeker says:

    Hence, your statistic is flawed in that it looks backward. Fifty year old men were thirty then. The ones that are thirty now won’t be fifty for another twenty years and that will yield a different result.

    Ugh. Fuzzie, it is NOT FLAWED WHEN APPLIED TO MEN WHO ARE 50 TODAY LIKE JASON IS. I actually agree that it doesn’t predict outcomes at 50 for men who are 30 now — that’s bloody obvious for goodness sake. However, Jason isn’t 30 now, he’s 50 now. The chart is appropriately applied to his vision of things and how he characterizes his own struggles with women over the course of his life, as a guy who is now 50 — it isn’t an 80/20 issue.

  20. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    AngloSaxon,
    I can’t explain it. It is just something that scientists have observed and they have no explanation for it either. As a species, we are pretty resilient. We have survived bottlenecks before.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/genetic-bottleneck-almost-killed-humans-2016-3
    One thought did occur to me. This happened at the dawn of civilization. By introducing assortative mating, civilization was actually launched. It could not be a small factor.

  21. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Nova,
    Then, you concede that hypergamy is not static, but has accelerated in the intervening decades?
    There are a lot of older never married men. By being so, they are not sexual failures. They are outliers.

  22. AngloSaxon says:

    Scientists haven’t observed it. It happened thousands of years ago supposedly.

  23. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    AngloSaxon,
    You’re being silly. They have observed it indirectly by studying DNA.
    I do think you have a point. A group of humans that would see seventeen women reproduce for every man reproducing could not stand for long. I have to wonder if lifetime monogamy was proposed as an alternate and found to work well?

  24. Joe2 says:

    I actually agree that it doesn’t predict outcomes at 50 for men who are 30 now — that’s bloody obvious for goodness sake.

    The outcomes at 50 for men who are 30 today are predictable according to the “climate change” and “green new deal” scientists. Initially, climate change will have different effects on the various areas of the earth creating regional “bottlenecks” unless drastic action is taken now. Ultimately, civilization will cease to exist.

  25. Jacob says:

    Setting boundaries gives men the impression they have control in secular marriage, but it’s only an impression because they have no power to enforce boundaries. The state gives power in marriage to women. With the state as the final authority, marriage is at best little more than a joint venture agreement and in JVA’s nothing that either party did before signing the agreement has any standing, except for obviously injurious non-disclosures. No-fault divorce degrades it further into a service or property contract, which both parties may terminate at any time without reason or justification. In a woman-first socio-political environment, where all sorts of legal exit clauses exit for women, control over this handy-andy kind of contract is really in the hands of feminists and their policing apparatus.

    Vetting is just as impotent in secular marriage. Unless the woman is well-known beforehand, or the man hires a PI to investigate her, vetting depends on her telling the truth about her past. Truth is held by much of modern secular womanhood not as a virtue but a tool to be used when it’s to their advantage and stretched or omitted when it’s not. This makes vetting unreliable.

    Both vetting and boundary-setting obviously work much better in Christian marriage, since the final authority is God and His Word. However, this is only as strong as the extent to which a church recognizes and resists syncretism towards the secular view of marriage. If secular views have been baptized into the church and elevated to a spiritual norm, it’s nigh impossible for men to properly vet women or enforce boundaries both before and after marriage. It’s better to find a church that upholds Biblical views of marriage and take your chances with a smaller pool of suitable women than to be married in a church that has become syncretistic. It’s better not to marry at all than to be married to a Churchian wife who has friends and pastors spurring her on to follow the world and resist your authority.

  26. lastmod says:

    82% of fifty year old men have been married at least once. Yeah……sure they have, the CBO (congressional budget office) also tells us that Social Security will be fine and have no problems until 2035. We know that to be not true either, DS has also mentioned that the USA is not any less christian culturally than it was back in the 1950’s. That’s so bunk. The Census Bureau has been politicized, skewered and jerrymangled on stats for a long time. The only thing it does get right is basically a rough count of how many people are living in the USA…..and that’s all they should be trying to count anyway…..and we know they are off on that. Remember for 2010…….they were trying to count *all* the homeless in the USA……..their rough average was WAY off in some areas and WAY under in others. They tell us right now there are some 5 thousand in SF. Bullsmack. Try 10 thousand. Yeah, I am sure the congressional representative from SF…..a Nancy Pelosi did nothing to hinder and make the count lower than it should have been,

    60% I could deal with. Even in my circle of guy friends from college, Ten of us……about six married at least once. Of that six, 3 divorced…..and those three all remarried again. Two ended up living with a girl and ended up having children…..and both of them moved on to living with some other woman. Two of us never married. I suppose the Census will *use statistics* and just marked us as gay.

    When I was actively in church…..in Fresno…….most of the men were not married. We were not good enough providers. Jesus was in training to be a carpenter and he never once talked about his wage……and being a carpenter in those “great” times was not a Union wage and with vacations and healthcare and a nice home in the Upper City in Jerusalem.

    You guys watch too many movies or reality TV………bartenders have an abysmal dating life overall. Most are working the prime “dating / going out time” during youth in the nightclub scene. When they get off work, you’re freaking exhausted and you smell like a brewery / distillery. At 3AM when you get out after cleanup and tip cut…..you just want a shower, or you went to score your drug of choice. Sometimes the crew after a really bizzaro night would go out to an all night diner type of place (San Francisco at 3am….the diner “Loris” was PACKED with nightclub workers getting a meal before they went home). Once in awhile myself and a fellow bartender or two would be invited to a houseparty or afterhours party at a warehouse where we could relax for a bit, do some cocaine…have a drink….but meeting women was furthest from our minds. We just wanted decompression….and I can speak as well for female bartenders (few) and the cocktail waitresses in nightclubs. Most felt very unsexy at 3AM after being hit on all night, and given attitude by their fellow sisters in places like this.

    Nightclubs…….and I don’t care WHAT city or state are terrible places to meet women. When I was working that scene, I was already a bit older than average…I was into my thirties at that point…..I did have a nice head of blonde hair still (sigh). The DJ (depending on their fame….Moby spun at one night at the nightclub I worked at……..dude could have picked ANY woman that night……and the hottest gal there made it VERY easy for him…..but Moby back then despite being bald had a very chiseled face and body on him…also……worldwide fame…not a douche either, was great, personable with the staff before we opened and gave us ‘guest list’ status at another nightclub when many of us would be off because he knew we were going to miss the performance…we were working)

    Men are first-class a-holes at that age in the nightclub scene. You have to yell to hear anybody. Women get drunk, make a scene, and ALWAYS accuse a bartender of “stealing her credit card / overcharging her all night”

    The nights you are off, if you are a “good, solid bartender” are usually Monday and Tuesday because those are the slowest days of the week, You live on tips. I worked at a Union hotel, so I made a better wage than others, and I got healthcare. I was pulling in about 22 an hour back then in San Francisco……..but the tips. That was the money. On an average Saturday night at my nightclub I averaged about 600 a night in tips. You don’t get give up that slot once you earn it, My barback was the guy who kept my show running, and I tipped him very well on those nights. The whole bartending scene in a nightclub is a Machevelian hotbed of scheming and intrigue.

    I saw little hooking up of bartenders with the clientel. Did it happen? Yes. To who????

    Yeah…..always the best looking guy on bat staff. Some guys do have all the luck 🙂

  27. AngloSaxon says:

    And where did they find this DNA from thousands of years ago, behind the sofa?

    Our society has very little reproduction and a lot of men without women and its currently limping along, I don’t see how such dysfunction can last thousands of years…

  28. lastmod says:

    Those DNA stats also don’t include the dead ends. Not men like me…….but men who say did father children….and all of them died before they came of reproduction age. I was reading a history of Victorian England……sure, families were big, but most children died. There was even a very large cottage industry of buying “death / burial” insurance urged by church, family and culture because most children would not live to 18. Young men were also rounded up to join the British navy by force….or a stipend / one time payment was giving to the family (the lower classes) and the son was put on a ship, spent his his life there. Sure, some perhaps fathered unknown children in some remote port in Zanzibar, Rangoon, Nassau or Lagos…..but the mortality rate at sea in the navy was very high….and fresh bodies were always needed. Let’s not forget this was through history. Not just England. Countless men were sent off in the army to die for national interests at that time. Egypt, Greece, Rome…..Vedric India……….Israel, how many men under “gods righteousness” died at the front while Joshua and countless other kings and leaders got to tell us what “gods plan was”

    Even in Rome. Sure, after twenty years of service……a man would get a farm. Very few made it that far. Endentured servitude which was practiced by all the colonial powers…..yes, after x number of years the man was “free” yet most died in the sugar plantations of Carribean, the mines in feudal Mexico or in the veldt of South Africa…….and when these servants became free, if they lived…..they had nothing. They usually signed right back up because of no property, no tools, no money to hop a ship back to the mother country

  29. @ jason

    DS has also mentioned that the USA is not any less christian culturally than it was back in the 1950’s. That’s so bunk.

    That is incorrect.

    Like Nova, I’ve mentioned that most people identified with being Christian and Christian values as it was an accepted norm. However, as “culture” moved away from that, those who were Christian in name only moved away from those values.

    They were not real Christians in the first place as real Christians would follow Jesus despite positivity or negativity toward Christianity in the culture.

  30. Novaseeker says:

    Nova,
    Then, you concede that hypergamy is not static, but has accelerated in the intervening decades?
    There are a lot of older never married men. By being so, they are not sexual failures. They are outliers.

    I never claimed they were static — I was simply stating what the statistics say about men who are, today, a certain age and their marital history.

    Yes, such men are outliers — failures is a value judgment, each one will make that or not.

    As for whether hypergamy is accelerating it very well may be, but as Dalrock himself, who is the maestro of marital statistics, has pointed out numerous times, there is still no evidence of a marriage strike, or fewer men marrying overall, but rather evidence of a delay in marriage age. It may very well be that we see, in the next decade, an actual overall increase in the percentage of men of older ages who have never been married, and if we do it would certainly not surprise me, but we aren’t seeing that statistically yet.

  31. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    AngloSaxon,
    Here is another link. It appears that all this has been deduced from studying present DNA. There is a pair of graphs that are pretty startling. It went on for much more than a generation. Also, there are links.
    https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

    Nova,
    While Dalrock is an excellent source, you have to admit that his figures are looking backwards too. I think that hypergamy is getting worse and that Tinder is the source of it. That has yet to hit Dalrock’s charts. As for delaying marriage, women can’t do much more. They are already at high risk in pregnancy.

  32. Jacob says:

    I remember coming across a study at college many decades ago that described how our DNA, interpreted through genetic analysis of specific sex-linked chromosome markers, showed that roughly 80% of women who ever lived were mothers while only 40% of men who ever lived were fathers. There were lots of qualifications to the data but it’s the gap that’s significant: twice as many women than men have passed on their genes. The corollary is that *three* times as many men than women have not – i.e. 60% of men throughout history have not been fathers.

    Another study showed that roughly twice as many women today carry the genital herpes virus as men. This suggests that nothing has really changed over time. Methods, modes of behavior and cultural trends maybe, but not actual outcomes.

  33. lastmod says:

    I remember hearing that as well in a lecture during my undergrad years as well in a physiology class Jacob. This was probably back in 1990 or thereabouts…….the doctorate level biologist who was teaching the class mentioned this offhand….not exactly on topic or the topic of the class…but it was mentioned about the Y chromosome being the basis of genetic variation in humans way much more than the X chromosome…..though womens’ DNA can be traced back to one woman evidently…….”Eve” so to speak……though I am sure the Census Bureau or some other study since then might even make this statement false or untrue today. I remember learning this somewhere (Nova on PBS or National Geographic……probably back in the 1980’s)

    Interesting.

  34. lastmod says:

    Your quote DS

    “It is a good example of understanding why many men wish to go back to such a time (even though 1950s America wasn’t anymore “Christian” than America is today)”

    My context was wrong. Your statement makes no mention of the culture btw

  35. Novaseeker says:

    While Dalrock is an excellent source, you have to admit that his figures are looking backwards too. I think that hypergamy is getting worse and that Tinder is the source of it. That has yet to hit Dalrock’s charts. As for delaying marriage, women can’t do much more.

    Yes, the stats look backwards, but that’s inevitable. We won’t actually know how many guys who are currently 25 will be never married at 50 until … they are 50. We can speculate, but that’s all we can do, because they’re still 25 and marriage ages are increasing.

    Women can wait quite a bit longer. Have you seen the average marriage ages in Europe or South America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_at_first_marriage

  36. @ Jacob

    I remember that one too.

    I remember coming across a study at college many decades ago that described how our DNA, interpreted through genetic analysis of specific sex-linked chromosome markers, showed that roughly 80% of women who ever lived were mothers while only 40% of men who ever lived were fathers. There were lots of qualifications to the data but it’s the gap that’s significant: twice as many women than men have passed on their genes. The corollary is that *three* times as many men than women have not – i.e. 60% of men throughout history have not been fathers.

    This shouldn’t really be surprising given what was in the past several millenia.

    War always killed off a substantial amount of males, and the women of that tribe/nation would be taken by the other tribe/nation.

    That could easily get you to the 40/80 figure.

    Plus throw in infant death, unsanitary conditions, death during childbirth, other illness, and things like that and you have these general stats.

  37. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Jacob,
    Thanks for the tidbit about genital herpes. Presuming both men and women are equally susceptible to infection, this speaks about what women are up to in a loud voice.

    About war, I once saw a chart on the series Connexions about how it is growing exponentially. In Alfred the Great’s time, a few dozen could decide an outcome to last for centuries. It can be seen here in this video of the 100 greatest militaries of all time. #100 was a republic that stood for only nine years in the nineteenth century and was chronically broke. #3 has only been around for the last two hundred and forty five years.

    You can also see this in this compilation of successful generals. The 19th and 20th centuries are overwhelmingly represented.

    About the 40/80 disparity, one of the factors not mentioned is that red headed milkmen have been busy for millennia. That bothers me.

  38. Joe2 says:

    Future challenges for China will be the gender disparity. According to the 2010 census, males account for 51.27% of China’s 1.34 billion people, while females made up 48.73% of the total. The sex ratio (the number of males for each female in a population) at birth was 118.06 boys to every 100 girls (54.14%) in 2010, higher than the 116.86 (53.89%) of 2000, but 0.53 points lower than the ratio of 118.59 (54.25%) in 2005.[22] In most western countries the sex ratio at birth is around 105 boys to 100 girls (51.22%).

    The above statistics don’t look very encouraging for young men in China. There are 16 to 18 percent more young men than young women. For western countries the ratio is much less, but still more boys than girls are born. Thus, for many men looking to get married there is no hope unless it’s to a divorcee.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China

  39. lastmod says:

    oh come on Joe……all these men in China need to do is hit the gym, be confident, be funny, have a great career………..we all know women just make great decisions when it comes to selecting men……they’re all ready to be wives, and mothers…..make sure you vett her real good, have amazing…..rock-solid frame at all times. No problem.

    and if you don’t get married or have a wife, or children….god doesn’t promise you anything. just serve in the church be happy for your situation….but you know…..since you didn’t do biological duty and you couldn’t attract one of these women………..you will be excluded from leadership in the church. Yeah, you can pass out the program when the families come in………sure you can teach Sunday school because the married couples need to be fed more than you do….but we’re all equal before the cross…….don’t be bitter……that’s why you’re single! Don’t worry, in heaven god is gonna reward you for being faithful! Just sit here, pray, be devout, be excluded from any real connection……..and we’ll tell you how to be a ‘real man’ of god with permission from those in charge of course…….

    no problem!

  40. @ Jason

    We get it. You like complaining and mischaracterizing stuff that we say.

    Perhaps your time can be better spent doing something else.

  41. lastmod says:

    No, you don’t like anyone who may disagree with you and has a few valid points. There is really nothing left to do.

    Traveled. Been everywhere I wanted / want to go. I can speak a foreign language fluently, and red and write in it. I am tired of “volunteering” all I do is get more expectations dumped on me when I meet and exceed expectations. Work is work….will be getting a promotion I am sure in the coming year. I have hobbies which are maxxed out and just now boring. I can play two instruments and I can read music.

    I’ve done some interesting things I suppose over my life……but nothing worth really talking about or of interest to anybody……..no immediate family left. Friends??? In todays world? Who has friends? The place you would expect to meet and make few doesn’t want or need anymore.

    Reading. I’ve read enough books over my life (have had plenty of time). The Bible? Everytime I read, pray or have studied and made an observation

    “No….it means this / you are bitter / I led studies since I was three / I speak greek….”

    The mischaractering should be looked at in the mirror

  42. @ jason

    No, you don’t like anyone who may disagree with you and has a few valid points. There is really nothing left to do.

    That’s only if you believe that disagreement means I don’t like you. I can disagree with people and still like them.

    If I didn’t like you, you would probably be banned. I have sympathy for your situation, but it seems like any advice from me or anyone else here falls on deaf ears.

    Traveled. Been everywhere I wanted / want to go. I can speak a foreign language fluently, and red and write in it. I am tired of “volunteering” all I do is get more expectations dumped on me when I meet and exceed expectations. Work is work….will be getting a promotion I am sure in the coming year. I have hobbies which are maxxed out and just now boring. I can play two instruments and I can read music.

    I’ve done some interesting things I suppose over my life……but nothing worth really talking about or of interest to anybody……..no immediate family left. Friends??? In todays world? Who has friends? The place you would expect to meet and make few doesn’t want or need anymore.

    Reading. I’ve read enough books over my life (have had plenty of time). The Bible? Everytime I read, pray or have studied and made an observation

    I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to get at here. You’ve done a lot of stuff, but it seems meaningless?

    This is why as a Christian our focus is on the Great Commission. It gives meaning and purpose to life. It makes us go out of our way to love and care for others which incidentally is a way to build friendships even today.

  43. lastmod says:

    “This is why as a Christian our focus is on the Great Commission. It gives meaning and purpose to life. It makes us go out of our way to love and care for others which incidentally is a way to build friendships even today.”

    Where is this practiced? Not in an american or dare I say ‘western church’
    The closest thing we have is folks saying a sinners prayer (which jesus never talked about), and “asking him into your heart” and voila! It’s done!

    Life has no meaning.

  44. Jacob says:

    lastmod/Jason,

    Your comments are full of interesting perspectives. You also provide some necessary counterpoint to manosphere narratives. I for one appreciate what you have to say. However, you often mix decent arguments in with random accusations which imply that everyone is personally responsible for harming you in some way. This is simply
    not true.

    Personally, I have a high tolerance for any kind of male expression – men need to vent and lament in this hyper-suppressive social climate. But there is a limit. Men in the manosphere are not the enemy. Many may seem that way, but most understand to some degree how life is for other men even if they don’t feel the same way. Most also don’t express themselves as well or as freely as you do, so you have the advantage as far as that goes. Life sucks for all but a few men at the moment, we all know that. Most accept that we’re fighting a common enemy.

    We’re sitting around the campfire to learn, teach and help others how to do this. Some men like to vent or lament. Some like to watch it burn. Some like to talk. Some ideas stink, others work well for stronger men, still others for weaker men. Some are good for everyone. There isn’t a theory that simplifies manhood down to a common successful idea. Men are gifted differently. We apply different knowledge and skills differently. That’s why we sit around and poke the fire.

    I’m sure you appreciate this. You’re obviously experienced in many ways and have important things to say that will be helpful to someone. You’re as important to the campfire discussion as any other. But can I encourage you to poke the fire without showering sparks over everyone? We don’t need burning cinders flying everywhere. It’s not our fault.

    Our host has gone to the trouble of providing this space and brings us decent fuel every few days. He doesn’t have to do it, but he does, diligently, and for the sake of all who stop by. We owe it to him and his guests to keep the fire burning safely. God knows its cold out there.

  45. lastmod says:

    Jacob.

    That was a good reply. Really could not have thought it in that way, let alone expressed it.

    As for me spraying the sparks….they need to be kicked up……and many if not most look at my comments as a “stand alone” statement, not reading as to why I kicked them up in the first place. I fully admit with no blame nor bitterness (though most here will take my reply as bitter. It isn’t. I could walk in here, and say “nice day isn’t it?” and some in here would find that ‘bitter’ and accuse me of that) that I have roused the rabble on my own to see a reaction. I do this not to be a “douche” or some “blue pilled / tradcon / beta gentical dead end loser” but to make you realize or at least understand that this is where MANY men are today.

    Not welcome in church. Not needed in church. Not needed in the general society. Not as a husband, boyfriend or even friend material. Anything these men say is or do is one-upped by a bunch of superior thinking and acting men. A bit snobby and any ‘learning’ is usually squelched by the guy who thumps his chest loudest like we’re in a backwards tribe.

    When I ran a Boy Scout Troop…..all my boys heard all day were instructions from women. Demands from women. Talking down to by women in school, at a part time job, at home by mom, by an older female sibling or relative (grandma, aunt, cousin). These boys get medded up, thrown into life and told to “be men” and “man up” and “be red pill”

    Some of these boys adjust who may have some decent looks, they learn quickly through sexual exploits how women operate….thus making them more attractive to women, and also making their opinions of women worse while they get what most men today do not. Most young men really have nothing to do. They try church…..”just accept jesus! it’s great…he’s this, he’s that, he knows all, wants the best for you!”

    When a challenge comes “Oh brother, you have to pray / christianity is suffering / be a eunch / sex is the most amazing thing…..don’t ever do it….that’s only for married people…..oh, you burn with passion??? god doesn’t promise you a wife / do something….no don’t do that……….pray, god answers prayer (he doesn’t btw), be a man….no not that way…this way……just pray……volunteer…..man up…….ummm who do you think you are standing up for yourself? We have rules in this church and a heirachy!”

    These men (like myself) cannot win. Life is only a “game” when you just happen to be on the side where the hot shots are. No hot shots? Better to stay home. When men cannot and will not even be accepted by their fellow brothers in a church or as just men out in the world the only solutions left are to withdraw to the cheap shots of shame setting comments “lives in mommys basement / plays video games / watches porn all day”

    Alcohol, food, drugs……can become the norm. Of all places a church should be the place where men are needed, and wanted. Many claim a good show about wanting this…..but when 20, 30, 40 years of “you’re a loser” and “sexist” and “ha ha! you can’t get a girl!” gets ingrained. It will take actual work to help some of these men. How’s prayer working there?????? It;s not because god only favors the winning team.

    I could go on here, and many will think I am being unfair to the faith. I am not. This is the reality of what most men will experience when they enter a church environment. Who wants to live like that? You all certainly would not.

    My life is nothing. It’s worthless and not worth the memory of even making a made for TV movie about (remember those). Great I’m sober and clean now. I am productive, pay my taxes, and there is nothing else left except to wait until the end comes.

    I like many men believed a lie in christianity. I believed also in stupid fads on how to get a girlfriend. I was never told the truth “you have it or you don’t”

    In the christian faith, I have to sit and be miserable around all the cool kids hearing WEEKLY about how god is “blessing” them. In the secular world, I have to hear DAILY on what I don’t have enough of.

    Waiting until I breathe my last. I am just about fifty. I cannot imagine another 20, 30, 40 more years of this.

  46. Derek Ramsey says:

    “This is why as a Christian our focus is on the Great Commission. It gives meaning and purpose to life. It makes us go out of our way to love and care for others which incidentally is a way to build friendships even today.”

    This is correct, but also incomplete. Jesus conquered death and promised resurrection. This is the payoff. The Great Commission is the job. There are many potential on-the-job benefits (social, emotional, physical, etc.), but that’s somewhat incidental or beside the point. Thus when Jason says…

    “Life has no meaning.”

    …it is entirely possible that a human can have a very trying time obeying God and following the Great Commission. In a way, Jason is correct that life has no meaning. When he does so he is echoing the words of Ecclesiastes or invoking the spirit of the book of Job. It is not heresy to say that life has no meaning, though you can’t leave out the conclusion of the matter:

    “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

  47. theasdgamer says:

    “I was never told the truth “you have it or you don’t””

    …kind of like the parable where the man who only has one talent buries it in a hole in the ground…

    …too many young men have weak knees…because they never learned to work or to take the hard way…they never had masculine role models…or maybe they never noticed the masculine role models around them…

    …as a man, you eventually have to realize that a lot that you are told by the world (including churchianity) is nonsense…and you have to learn to observe and learn from what you observe…you know, like we are told in Proverbs…

    …and God sends older men to give younger men a kick in the pants to get their attention so that the younger men realize that they are screwing up and being lazy…

  48. theasdgamer says:

    “Presuming both men and women are equally susceptible to infection”

    lol

  49. theasdgamer says:

    “I have hobbies which are maxxed out and just now boring.”

    I’m sure one of them was fixing up antique cars. lol

    If you want to make worthwhile friends, take up masculine hobbies that require skills. It’s funny, but women seem to gravitate towards men like this.

    I’m sure one hobby that you haven’t tried is cheering up kids with debilitating diseases like cancer. There is so much negative that it’s a blessing to cheer people up–and that takes skill at being “the life of the party”.

  50. Pingback: Unshameable | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s