The One Thing That Makes A Man

As I was clearing out my bookmarks recently, I stumbled across a link to an old Chateau Heartiste post I’d once earmarked for future perusal: “Beta Valentine”.  When I saw that it was a movie review, I of course watched the film in question, praised by Roissy as “so bracing, so truthful, and so relevant to the cultural moment.”  I, too, highly recommend it.

The story depicts the decline of one Dean Pereira (and the relationship that crumbles as a result).  While I watched a certainty crystallized in my cortex that had previously been but a whisper at the edge of my awareness.  The essence of being a man.

The single thing that makes a man is control.


A man knows that the present cannot be used to change the past, and acts accordingly. His actions, although rapid when required, are never hasty nor rash. On the very rare occasion he is roused to anger, it is not spontaneous violence but simmering discontent that he displays.

Lifestyle control

A man does not flee from his problems with consistent drunkenness or drugs. His discipline and confidence manifests in a healthy diet and exercise regime. He listens to the wisdom of others and the voices of his community but always makes his own choices.

Financial control

A man supports himself by producing value for society. In some cases others rely on his financial support, but never the inverse. His finances are subject only to his scrutiny and administration, and he has contingencies in case of unforeseen complications.

Relationship control

A man maintains only the relationships that he values, and does not value people who do not value him. As he has the elements of control listed above, he cannot be dictated to, shamed or blackmailed. If treated poorly, he can and will walk away.

Control does NOT require or imply a lack of responsibilities.  It is instead a state of mind and a state of affairs.  Make it yours.

Read More:  Decreasing Marriage Rate Is Hurting Feminism

106 thoughts on “The One Thing That Makes A Man”

  1. Cool and Controlled. Powerful and Comforting.
    I like this article. Nothing new to us but it is succinct in its treatment.

    1. Necessary, but not sufficient.
      Even then Maggie Thatcher had the virtues of a man.

      1. There are many guys that look like they have a package.
        Very few are actually carrying one.

  2. I agree. I prefer the word “power” to “control”, but same sentiment.
    How much power a man has over himself, his environment, and others.

    1. So were there no men before men invented money?
      I recommend you rethink your argument.

  3. Another aspect: only a man will have the balls to say, “fuck all of you, I’m doing it my way.” Girls just don’t do that. Hence why men have invented *99.99% of things out there.
    *Made that figure up, but it’s probably an underestimation.

    1. What’s funny is that when a gal goes her own independent way…it was a way created by men.
      Their precious feminist movement…was the fevered creation of a one eyed madman.
      Heck even the sammich was an invention of a man.

      1. Dunno who invented feminism but it was promoted in the 60’s by the CIA. The original burning bra bitch was an 18 year old CIA agent.

        1. A Rockefeller according to this interview.

          The point is…it wasn’t a Jenny Rockefeller who thought this up.

        2. EVERYONE WATCH THIS ^^^^ I don’t care what you think of Infowars and conspiracy theories, this is informative. Good post, Tate.

    2. Charles Murray pointed out in his massive book, “Human Accomplishment,” that men – specifically “European” men (and we know what that means) have created 98% of everything in the world.

      1. Good to know. Will put that in my useful facts file for the next time a woman or a “non-European” (we all know what that means) wants to have a go at me.

        1. Do not believe everything you read, it’s always better to err on the side of open minded non judgement and remember that that’s just one mans perspective and NOT hard facts. Non European women are the least self serving. Best wishes 🙂

      2. I wonder if the Ancient Near East can be included in “European” for the sake of the argument, as we learned from them in the distant past. They (arguably) created writing, wheels, and cities, astronomy/astrology, mathematics, rule of law, etc or at least were amongst the earliest users. While they are by no mean European or “European” (and we do know what that means) they were the founders of what became Western Civilization.

        1. I suggest you read the book. And before him, there were others who came to the same conclusions.

        2. Since you read it, provide a cogent response. This is a comments section, not a bibliography or New York Times best sellers list.

        3. Murray went back as far as he could in history, but found in the last 500 years, 98% of everything came out of Europe and its descendents throughout the world. Africa – nothing. Asia – a drop. India – a drop. Arabia – a drop. He also found that one of the main reasons for this explosion out of Europe was Christianity – which is exactly what Michael Novak told him beforehand. He also found that it had to do with political and economic liberty, which he also found to have existed nowhere but in the West.

        4. what have you created beta white or beta non white man?
          nothing, so stop sucking on this angry beta mans pee wee

        5. why don’t you go worship and jump on all their pee wees? author groupie.

        6. One of many fallacies created and continually perpetuated by white european men to ease their fear of being an ethnic minority with recessive gen

        7. Yet before that particular 500 year period you will probably find that most, if not all things came from outside europe. The last 500 years was a period of european innovation, before that, it was the middle east, asia, egypt etc. I think you’re forgetting that the majority of what made industrialisation possible came from outside europe, re: gunpowder, algebra (arab), paper currency, the compass fornavigation …

      3. who cares.. its all about who is reaping the fun out of all that is created. be better than a pion who follows bland authors. don’t believe the hype

    3. A lot of brown and yellow men come to the West and invent stuff in high tech, medicine and the sciences, but since they are in the West the West gets full credit instead of the East which is the origin of these immigrant men. The reality is white men created a lot of stuff in the past, non-white men are creating a lot of stuff now, and women of any color created little to nothing besides babies in the past, present or future. You racists

      1. “Whites create, Asians copy, black sing and dance.”
        The only reasons immigrants “create” anything is because of the West. Without it, these immigrants would still be living in societies thousands of years behind us.
        “Racism” is a Commie word and means nothing. It is the favorite word of those who are consumed with envy.

        1. You are stuck in your ways. I hope you live to see the day in 2050 when China is the biggest economy on Earth and its military tech and training is on par with United States. Then you won’t feel so superior. Again, get your head outta your head and realize the new breakthroughs in Silicon Valley are being created by Indian and Chinese men, not white men. Bigots like you have no place in the mens movement, it’s a movement of convenience for you so you can compensate for your feelings of envy at the advances being made in Asian countries.

        2. Your fear and envy of the white man is clear to see. By the way, I find it funny that even Asian women prefer white men. They’ve told me Asian men are effeminate and have tiny penises.
          As for China, 100% of its economical success to due to the U.S. So U.S., China and Mexico collapse into the dust.
          I am a racist. You’re inferior, and it drives you crazy I am better than you in all ways. You can’t stand that.

        3. You may find similarities in the online compendium: “March of the Titans” by Arthur Kemp. TIME TO RISE UP! I’m tired of the systematic weakening of western countries and more specifically the European genome. The slathering of mud races upon or shores, the largest known genocides, staged as world wars… We are near the brink of extinction and it is time for our moral superiority and noble past to bring us back into the fight for anything and everything that actually matters.

        4. For the white race, our only hope and salvation, is returning to Pagan values. Back to our Earth, Motherland connection, for kinship and the supernatural. It’s almost time to walk away from this completely degenerate culture.. Don’t think holding on to Christandom will save you, that’s a tool of the weak. I can only laugh at Christians vs Zionism. It’s the biggest joke in the books. Now, what makes a man? Self-realization.

        5. Its seems blacks are dancing their black duck dongs into the heartistes of white women. So tell your forefathers to suck their own pee wee.

        6. you’re not white. the tiny pee wees of oriental men will be ravaging your little princess whootyholes as you will witness… the beauty of change. blacks on blondes part 2.
          oriental women prefer beta males.

        7. Your fixation on Asian penis size shows me you have no real experience with properly bitch-trained, submissive, sweet and supportive good girls in the real world. This inability to exercise your masculinity and lead satisfying relationships with attractive young females has manifested itself in your misplaced hatred and fear of your male superiors. Even an Asian man’s “tiny” penis is more cock than any bitch has. If cock size really mattered in determining one’s manhood, then the West wouldn’t have the most sexually frustrated limp-wristed men in the world afraid to lead and dominate their bitches like real men. You also have the most dysfunctional and cuntiest out of control women which shows a complete lack of understanding of women’s true nature. Keep misplacing your hate on your superior man you puss and let me know how far you get in life. You probably make minimum wage doing jack shit.

        8. Only white people have to take racism on the chin and not speak our minds in case we’re called racist in return. Me, I’m not afraid of that word, haven’t been for years. If a gun was pointed at my head and was told I have to shoot 4 of 5 people in front of me, and one happened to be white, I know who I wouldn’t shoot. And the same goes for any person here. If a black man had the same decision and one person happened to be black we all know who they wouldn’t shoot. So stop pretending that racism is a bad thing, or that it only relates to the white man. That’s bullshit. We all look after our own race. The only difference is that white people are the only ones who’s countries are being overtaken by foreigners.
          Yeah, suck on that, cunts.

        9. I’m pretty sure white people has taken over way more countries than “foreigners” who are taken over those occupied by white man. And I hope you’re not speaking of America as a white country that is being taken over by foreigners. Do you even know anything about history?

        10. U gotz it wrong buddy. If we were in a cell and it was 4 brothas and just U, I would save yo azz to be my toy in the cell. Nah mean. I tell my brothas GO GET UR OWN MANG.

        11. I bet I banged way more younger and prettier white girls than you. High quality white girls love the elite Asian man. We bang whites and asian more than you ever will.

        12. China has the mother of all real estate bubbles going. Just go look at all their ghost cities and tell me how that can possibly end well. And China still doesnt have the military capability to go against any major military power, let alone the US. They have a hard time just keeping the jihadists from Pakistan from terrorizing their country and keeping East Turkestan in line. They have just enough military strength to make it painful in case any country decides to challenge its territorial integrity, specifically when it comes to Taiwan.

        13. (Poke)
          You’re misnamed: Instead of Gay Spartan, you should’ve used Theban Sacred Band. 😉

        14. Sorry, but Paganism actually venerates (pedestalizes) women even MORE than Christianity. Christianity was late to the party; the veneration of Mary was actualy a response to the local Pagan deities. (As another example: So was Christmas, replacing Yule. And let’s not even start with Saint Patrick, dirving the snakes (DRUIDS) out of Ireland…)

        15. Bob, I would say your fear and envy of the asian is clear to see. Your constant rationalisation of why you are better (I still don’t see it), your fearful denial and downplaying of China’s inevitable rise, and your irrational way of clinging to past achievements of, not you, but your vastly superior countrymen. You’ve got nothing on them, and you know it, but it makes you feel like a woman, and you just *have* to stroke your little ego. Amirite?

      2. Thats precisely the point. If they cant overcome their clannishness and ethnic nepotism, they deserve no credit for their emigrants who succeed in Western countries. They are wholly incapable of meritocracy. And do you think white people can go settle in Africa, the Middle East, or even South and East Asia (for the most part) and go about their business in peace, the way minority immigrants in the West? The very concept of tolerance is foreign to them. And Im not sure how you think Western is racist when in todays contest it includes the nations of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The rest of the Asian countries are still as backward as they were centuries ago.

      3. White men still continue to be the highest tier novel innovators and creators. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are good examples. Where is the Indian Steve jobs? Or the Asian Bill Gates?
        If non-whites are gaining ground in Silicon valley, then affirmative action is the reason. Men in general are discriminated against for college scholarships and admissions, and white men are 10x more discriminated against than the rest. So no wonder there are less white men in the scientific fields. They are prevented entry by the fascist liberal system.
        As we all know with feminism, education is not a meritocracy. it is the same way with regards to race as it is with sex.
        By the way I don’t consider myself a racist. I think socialization determines the strength of any man over race, and that geniuses are raised generally. But I’m disgusted with the propping up of one race over another in this day and age. It is barbaric. If there is “black pride”, and “asian pride” etc, but white pride is racist…something is obviously broken in our society. Anyone who supports the discrimination and degradation of any race is just as bad as a feminist who does it to a gender. Or a Nazi for that matter.
        There should be a true meritocracy and nobody should be thought of as less than anyone based on race. Or bullied or undermined. And this should be the case even if the numbers in a meritocracy turn out to demonstrate that one race performs better. It would just mean that the under-performers need to catch up in terms of culture, education, and socialization. And they should be facilitated in advancement, and not propped up, like right now (or kept down). All races should strive together for the good of humanity, and not bicker and fight over petty differences.

  4. Self-control (not being impulsive), along with bravery (confidence), prudence (choosing the right path among many), and justice (giving each his due) are the Four Cardinal Virtues (“virtue” means “the powers of man”) and they were first identified at least 2200 years ago by the Greeks.

    1. Aristotelian virtue ethics are usually considered outmoded among ethical philosophers, brohio. Though funny enough, the most prominent ethicists I can think of working with virtue ethics today are Martha Nussbaum, Rosalind Hursthouse, Christine Swanton, and Julia Annas.
      The problem of virtue ethics in the Aristotelian model is that to find the golden mean between vices of excess and vices of lack, it helps us to have “virtue heroes” — figures who typify the virtue in question, figures worthy of emulation. But these “virtue heroes” are recognized by the popular acclaim of a community. Thus, Aristotelian virtue ethics suffers from a dual problem. First, without “virtue heroes”, virtue ethics doesn’t give a standard by which we should act. One person’s excess is another person’s moderation, which is another person’s dearth. Secondly, even the “virtue heroes” meant to guide us are elected by the dominant, temporal views of a community, meaning that the virtues are still subject to relativity.
      As an aside, I find it amusing that Aristotelian virtue ethics are being bandied around here, being that Aristotle argued that sexual moderation (as opposed to the “vices” of frequent sex and celibacy) is a virtue.

      1. Outmoded? Self-control – not being impulsive. Justice – to each his due. Prudence – to choose the right path from among many. Courage – perseverance and fortitude.
        Hardly outmoded,
        The modern philosophers are clueless. Ancient wisdom, such as the Bible and the Greeks and Romans, will last. The modern stuff will not.

        1. I see you’re not going to be awarded any points for reading comprehension. I wasn’t saying “good qualities” are outmoded. I was saying that Aristotelian virtue ethics are considered outmoded by a plurality of ethicists. Aristotelian virtue ethics aren’t prescriptive, in that they don’t give us any idea of how to be virtuous; and they rely completely on community standards, meaning that the “virtues” are completely relative.
          And your views on Greek and Roman morality are completely self-serving and anachronistic. Consider, for instance, the Epicureans. Their moral views were the precursor for today’s utilitarians. And yet, they were Greco-Roman philosophers. Even the Christians were Greco-Roman philosophers who are better labeled as divine-command deontologists rather than the virtue ethicists you’re fawning over.
          “Miniver loved the Medici, / Albeit he had never seen one”

        2. Yes, this has my pseudo-intellectualism written all over it. Except for the fact that this isn’t original research on my part. None of this. This is the standard discourse among ethicists. Ethicists talk about the relativism problem with Aristotelian virtue ethics. The Epicurians were utilitarians as we define the term. Early Christians were divine-command deontologists (most Christian denominations would fall under this banner too, but you can’t make a blanket statement, particularly when you look at leftist and liberal denominations of Christianity). It is, in fact, anachronistic to say that all Greek and Roman cultures were virtue ethicists.
          So, congratulations about trying to get in a cheap shot at me? Though, next time, you might want to hold your horses until your insults are, like…informed?

        3. I’d point out – the names you dropped for “modern ethicists” were all FEMALE.
          Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind, perhaps?
          Second, being women – they are generally incapable of separating the reality from their feelings. IE, they cannot think objectively or logically.
          I’ve learned that the hard way, with female friends, family members, lovers, acquaintances.
          To a woman, they are self-centered, manipulative, destructive of your mind and spirit.
          Those were the good ones, though none would claim to be ethicists.
          Most claimed they loved me in one or another way, though…

  5. Hmmm . . . I thought it was a penis that made a man a man. Obviously, I was misinformed.

    1. Eh, in the days of phalloplasty – not so much. 😉
      Especially interesting if you consider that there are “women” who are genetically male, but don’t respond to angrogens – so they develop as females. Literally, they look like women, but they don’t menstruate and can’t have children – certain parts are missing/ malformed. a 46(X,Y) body that looks like a woman, thinks like a woman, and is sterile. No penis, true; but the argument is, they’re MEN, because of the genetics…
      It’s going to get REALLY weird in a little while…

  6. I would say financial independence is necessary, but producing value for society may or may not apply.

    1. Producing value means something only within the context of whether the society is worth producing for. If it devalues you, then it’s not worth it, obviously.

  7. Man gets his needs met to his satisfaction: sex, relationships, friendships, social life. That’s it. Forget society’s definition, it was invented for the benefit of women.

  8. I like this article, but I will offer one caveat to Financial Control. “Enslavement used to be based on race, now it’s based on gender.” -Carnell Smith.
    After having spent so much time being used and abused by a system designed to make you a slave by mere dint of being a man, I sometimes feel it’s acceptable after a certain amount of time spent working your brains out to no avail to shift gears and then rely on others to “pay you back” (i.e. the government tit or a sugar mama) if necessary or if the opportunity presents itself.
    After all, turn about is fair play.

  9. It would all have been much easier if adam said to eve when she suggested eating the apple:
    “NO b1tch, no”.
    Unfortunately, history repeats itself as feminists drag men into the gutter. Thanks girls.

    1. The more I read that story…the more I realize the tree is Adam’s dick.
      Sure men got sex out of the deal…but we were also kicked out of paradise.

      1. Wouldn’t Adam’s dick be the Tree of Life? 😉
        They ate from the Tree fo Knowledge (suggests that they were cursed for no longer being animals, animals having no time-sense, no self-awareness. Comparsnon being, live birth of a cow or deer: Mommy just endures it, and drops the baby, and keeps eating the whole time…)

  10. The one thing that makes a man? The commitment he shows to following his goals and dreams, without allowing others (including cupcake) from dashing his plans.

  11. Have to disagree here on this one. I believe one of the best things you can do for your life is actually let go the need for control. Then again, I would say a man has to be in charge of his reality.
    I’ve thought about the single most important element that defines a man and I’ve come up with: He is a man of his own. In other words, he has his own personal standards for all of the things in his life. He doesn’t seek permission from others or adopt too much social conditioning. He is autonomous.

    1. Very well put, Mr. Elegant. The great man, the aristocrat, will very often be “the superfluous man” too. Albert Jay Nock viewed the phrase as a good descripition of himself. Here is what his biographer, Robert M. Crunden, had to say: “Nock made the essential point: ransack the past for your values, establish a coherent worldview, depend neither on society nor on government insofar as circumstances permitted, keep your tastes simple and inexpensive, and do what you have to do to remain true to yourself. He borrowed from ancient Greece, Thomas Jefferson, Matthew Arnold, and especially from Rabelais, but not from banks. He voted for Marcus Aurelius and Charles Dickens, but not for Franklin D. Roosevelt. He felt that as far as society was concerned, he was superfluous; no one had the slightest use for the intelectual goods he had to offer. He felt society on the whole superfluous to his needs.”
      Nock’s “Memoirs of a Superfluous Man” is available online ( Robert M. Crunden’s biography of him, “The Mind and Art of Albert Jay Nock” is superb. Crunden also edited a fascinating anthology entitled “The Superfluous Men: Conservative Critics of American Culture, 1900-1945”. I took the quotation above from its dust jacket.

  12. That’s quite the assessment of what the ousia of men is. It ends up being as descriptive as a fortune cookie, though. “The single thing that makes a man is control”? Then do women lack control, or is self-control some quality women are biologically unable to muster? Is the “single thing that makes a woman” spear-fishing or something?
    Granted, self-control and discipline are valuable things. I can’t think of any ethical philosophers off the top of my head who disparage them. But why frame this as a gender issue at all?

      1. An interesting assertion. But, “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
        So no.

        1. So – “Don’t believe your lying eyes”?
          When does “anecdotes” become “data”? 20 years? 30? 500 records across 10 states and a few hundred women? a few thousand across multiple cultures?
          We are talking about a “species” that has given rise to such Luiminaries as Susan Valenti (SCUM, Society for Cutting Up Men); Monika Lewinsky; Lorena Bobbit; I can’t even COUNT how many have killed their children; Mary Winkler; Joan of Arc (Killed quite a few); Queen Elizabeth; Siobhan; Countess Bathory; Naomi Wolf; Nelly Bly; Marie Curie (Given full credit for her husband’s work); Robespierre (Reign of Terror in France); Aufseherinnen (concentration camp guards); the Squaws of American Indians (See Kipling’s “The Female of the Species”); Phyllis Schlafly… LONG list. Even longer than the men…
          Yet men don’t assume every woman is Lorena Bobbit or Mary Winkler – while women make propaganda posters, “This man is a (potential) Rapist!” on college campuses – using innocent men’s photos.
          Men don’t even SUGGEST a woman would be Bobbit or Valenti or Bathory…
          But maybe we should.

    1. women
      – lack self-control
      – lack a moral compass
      – have pussy power over men
      each of these on their own is insignicant, but can you see what happens when you combine them?
      this is why the ‘patriarchy’ has historically kept a tight leash on women. and it worked for millennia.
      but somebody let go and the result is western society today.
      and you know what, it is our fault. collectively, we men failed to control our women, and for that we will be suffering the consequences for years to come.

      1. Regarding your three initial assertions:
        1. That’s a pretty universal claim. Citation needed for the scientific study that shows that all women everywhere have a damaged frontal lobe.
        2. So I guess Dorothea Dix fought so hard for reform of mental institutions because she was a sociopath? I have an entire anthology of female philosophers who’ve written essays ranging from “how to be moral in the world” (Susan Wolf) to “non-relative Virtue ethics” (Martha Nussbaum) to “morality in the moment” (Margaret Olivia Little). Even if you dismiss all the women in history who have acted with a demonstrable moral compass, let’s look at the simple fact that in the United States, men commit crime far more frequently than women do. If we regard crime as an act that runs contrary to morality, doesn’t that seem to negate the premise of your assertion?
        3. This is just silly. I’ve known my share of women who’ve found certain men to be uninteresting and lousy prospects for long-term relationships, but keep coming around because those men are great in bed. I’ve read over and over again about PUA’s who attempt to dicknotize (the logical opposite of pussy power, I guess) women, and you don’t make any mention of that. Really, in human civilization, there are people who have a great deal of sexual charisma. You go back far enough, and you had Anacreon complaining that he keeps going back to his beautiful, gold-digging boy-toy.
        With that aside, let’s talk about patriarchy. It’s no coincidence that the first root word is “pater”, since patriarchy is less concerned about “keeping a tight leash on the behavior of women” than it is about a man making sure that a woman only bears his children so he can better control how his property is distributed. Patriarchy isn’t some kind of moral imperative — it’s a financial system that turns women into property in the same way that some civilizations have turned ethnic minorities into slaves. It is, in purely Marxist terms, a system of bourgeois men exploiting the proletariat of women for gain. It should be no surprise then, that historically, the burden of extramarital sex falls more heavily on women than on men. Charles II has twelve illegitimate children, and his acts become an amusing footnote to his reign. Catherine Howard is accused of sleeping with another man, and she’s executed. It’s a case of the gander getting his, and fucking over the goose (no pun intended) when she wants hers.
        So instead of whining “O tempes! O mores!”, maybe you should try and understand that women aren’t children or objects. We want the same things that men have always wanted, the things that men have always gotten without any opprobrium or violence.

        1. #1: They’re women, ruled by emotions. Terminally on the rag.
          #2: In a roundabout sense: YES. “We don’t understand the problem, so let’s treat them with kid gloves, like misguided children, until they get better.” That’s resulted in lots of health care professionals being scarred, crippled, even KILLED. Because you can’t touch the 35-year-old body having a 2-year-old temper tantrum, or you’ll be fired, sued, and prevented from working again.
          Also of note, she fits the definition of “socialist”, and enforces her morality on others via the barrel of a gun (the State). From Wikipedia: “…at Greenbank, Dix met men and women who believed that government should play a direct, active role in social welfare. ” So – yeah, she’s not exactly on sound mental footing, she wants ME to pay for EVERYONE ELSE’S wants and needs : IE, she supports stealign from ME to support HER pet causes.
          As for your philosophers? Susan Wolf? Seriously? Not exactly moral, IIRC. “Non-relative Virtue Ethics” = ??? Well, Wikipedia says: Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of one’s character and the virtues that one’s character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. So, making it “non-relational” would mean… ? What, fully separated from each incident, as is later in the Wiki article? A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one’s character and moral behavior. As such, lying would be made in a case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent).
          So… Is it moral for her to say she’s on the pill if she’s not, but wants to get a meal ticket, I mean, wants a child? Or to insert a used condom into her vagina, in the hopes of a wealth transfer, I mean, becoming pregnant?
          Look, it’s either MORAL or NOT. VIRTUOUS or NOT. Sacred – or Profane. Woman has debased herself for quite some time: she has profaned herself. If she were WORTHY of the pedestal, we might allow her to stay on it. Now, she’s riding a Sybian on the pedestal, telling us we should aspire to be more like her, and that we – as lowly, worthless men – should prostrate ourselves before her to worship. then she’ll decide which of us to f*ck tonight.
          Nope – nothing immoral or questionable there, she’s just a woman acting out her womanly desires. And the guy she f*cks tonight will get a paternity notification, delivered to an address he’s never lived at, and it will be counted as properly served, and he won’t even know there’s a problem until after the opportunity to challenge paternity is over – if he has that chance at all.
          Yeah, that’s a HELL of a moral compass. Right up there with the latest push for infanticide (which the father STILL has no say in, just like Abortion, just like adoption, just like the Monring After Pill… )
          The thing speaks for itself. Woman is a base creature at her best. If it benefits Woman(kind), it’s GOOD. If it disturbs her in any way, it’s EVIL. Like spiders. And Snakes. And cockroaches. God forbid you kill something warm and fuzzy, though – That’s just MEAN –> EVIL. You’re COMPENSATING for something (yeah, an empty dinner plate, bitch.)
          #3 I won’t even bother with, it’s all emotional pap. She FEELS good, so it’s right. Yet you immediately turn to men as the example of “Not ALL WOMEN Are Like THAT!”
          No, but I don’t intend to keep eating the apple, looking for the 1% that’s good… I’ll just throw it away and get a new apple.
          Charles II is a good example of an “alpha” in social status, though – so who the F*ck cares about how cold YOUR bed is at night? Women threw themselves at him, no doubt – same as they throw themselves at sports heroes today. And a man who DOESN’T take advantage of the sluts? He’s ridiculed anyway, for not being “manly” enough (more like, he has convictions, or standards, and she fell short – so he made her feel BAD –> HE’S EVIL.)
          Women aren’t children or objects.
          They must be TREATED like children, though, or they get bitchy. Treat a woman like an equal, she sets out to prove she’s superior. And she’ll likely be superior to about half the men out there, given a normal distribution. That means 80% or more of the women are fighting for less than 50% of the men – fighting harder as their attractiveness goes up. It’s a losing proposition, when a man no longer has good financial control (not a provider due to bad economy – women are beginng to OUT EARN men in the US, and many are HOH/primary breadwinner – but STILL expect HIM to eb the provider. ) He has no legal say: If he raises his voice, it’s abuse; if he walks away, it’s abuse. If he leaves, it’s abandonment. If he is attacked, and defends himself, she can call the police and he goes to jail – for abuse. For that matter, she can get away with LITERAL murder. Winkler, Mary. If he strikes the wall? Abuse. He controls the finances? Abuse. He wants to stop working, that’s abuse, too – he’s not being a man, either, because he’s not providing… but she can stop working when she wants to have a family – and he’s not allowed to debate whether it’s a good time or not. Nor can he suggest she should be working, even if she IS the primary breadwinner. And she can still divorce him and take what little he DOES have: If she stayed at home, she’s primary caregiver; if he stayed at home, she’s the Mother and should be given custody – he’s OBVIOUSLY unfit as a father, since he cannot provide.
          What was that about moral compass, again? You don’t have one?
          Men want action. Risk. to build and create.
          Women want to be worshipped, and a pussy makes one worshipped: “The Miracle of Life”
          And many men HAVE suffered opprobrium [good word!] – but it’s usually entailed violence. You’re just unable to see that women use social violence, directing someone ELSE’s force against the object (person) you dislike. Q.V. “White Knight” or more crudely, “Cap’n Save a Ho.” Also termed, “Let’s you and him fight.”
          And – men and women want different things, from childhood on. Either men and women socialize sex roles before they know the difference of “male” and “female”, or it’s genetic to act certain ways. Boys play with things: Trucks, blocks; build cities; run, shout, jump. Girls respond to sounds and faces more; choose dolls (even making “dolls” out of toy cars, and making them into families); are less physical, less boisterous. Unless you wish to fight the medical & Gay/Lesbian/transgender community, you’ll have to tread VERY carefully here:
          Anyway, go make your own life, and I hope you like cats. No one ELSE will tolerate you. I even LIKE intelligent women, and I wouldn’t do more than chat over lunch… your premises are incorrect, fallacious. Predicated on falsehoods.
          But cherry-pick you authors some more, I didn’t even bother to note you’re reading things that will all CONFIRM your worldview.

        2. Your paradigm is short sighted, open your mind. You revealed this the moment you stated that men commit more “crime” as a legitimate measuring stick of overall morality.

      2. The somebody was God.
        Had the devil in chains for a 1000 years during the Patriarchy…then the devil gets 1000 years to do the destroying…until Jesus comes back. Why? Because men need to be tested and put through fires…and men have flunked at least in America since women were allowed to vote.

  13. The only thing you need to be a man is a bunch of game. Then you can teach some gullible dudes about “rationalization hamsters” and all this other pseudo-scientific crap. It’s just theory. The fact you sell books proves this even if your blog’s supposed to be the real deal LOL
    Right, Roosh?
    I’m sorry I hurt your feelings so bad with 1 small comment brah. Ban me again. Ban me as many times as you want…

        1. unfortunately, you can’t agree with a question. but im sure youll get the hang of it eventually.

    1. Someone is showing a lack of self-control. Besides, money does you little good here.

  14. “What makes a man is money. If you don’t have money, you’re not even a person.”
    I was misunderstood but since I got banned for it, it’s gonna be posted for the hell of it.

    1. You should re-phrase: What a man makes is VALUE. If you don’t have VALUE, you’re not a person.
      Many women don’t have any value (produce anything) – except their own shit.

  15. Control does NOT require or imply a lack of responsibilities.
    Rather, the inverse. Men in control are in a better position to take responsibility.

    1. Yup…keep yourself in check when things are good and when SHTF you stay in check.
      They give responsibility to guys that prove they can do both.

  16. I probed the archives for this gem: “Nature gave me the form of a woman; my actions have raised me to the level of the most valiant of men.” – Semiramis, Assyrian Queen
    On a side note: 95% of the authors and posters on this website are shit.

  17. “A man supports himself by producing value for society”. Fuck society, I say. Do whatever you like to make money.

      1. That wouldn’t be a surprise with all the sorry states of males who walk around masquerading as men not knowing that being a man doesn’t just happen

  18. Geez, you know everything. That is a bit of a curse if you aren’t God. You remind me of my cat Aloyusis.

  19. Wow! This is a very controversial article that does not speak about the alpha male and what that really entails.

Comments are closed.