Anthropologists tell us that the human race has gone through distinct phases in its development. The hunter-gatherer phase was the first and apparently the longest-lasting, and was characterized by a sharp division of labor and roles between males and females. The males, for the most part, were responsible for the capture of game and those chores associated with this task, such as making weapons and planning tactics and strategy of the hunt. In reciprocation for his exposing himself to the mortal dangers of stalking and killing game, the male was likely to rest during most of his time in camp.
In camp, the female was master: she was responsible for the care and rearing of children, the construction of huts and hovels, gathering and foraging for edible plants, and the physical transportation of camp supplies. In this respect (carrying supplies) primitive women were quite strong, almost the physical equal of their male counterparts. Even today, in primitive societies in Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific, it is incredible to see just how much weight native women are able to carry on their heads and backs. In carrying out her tasks about camp, women were also likely the inventors of sewing, basketry, pottery, weaving, woodworking, and primitive construction.
Written accounts of white settlers in North America often marvel at the astonishing capacity for work displayed by native women. Being feminine at this state of civilization meant something very different than it does now: women were expected to be useful, to pull their weight, and to earn their keep. For tens of thousands of years—perhaps even hundreds of thousands—human society existed and preserved itself roughly along these lines, all across the globe. Our current instincts and behavioral inheritances as men and women are traceable to this crucial period of history.
The invention of agriculture (roughly 10000 B.C.) brought a revolutionary change in human society and social organization. Perhaps by observing nature (bees storing honey, birds dropping seeds on fertile soil that later sprouted, etc), humans eventually began to realize that edible material could be coaxed out of the soil, and seed could be saved during winter months. Slowly, over a great deal of time, more efficient and reliable tools were invented to do agricultural work. The digging stick or spear eventually gave way to the modern hoe. As food supplies increased, populations increased, and social organization became more complex and differentiated. Finally, a major step was made with the domestication of animals which could assist in agricultural tasks, such as oxen. Cattle became a source of wealth.
The rise of agriculture was critical to the establishment of patriarchies around the world. Man, due to the physical strength needed to control the plow and domestic cattle, was able to accrete the benefits of agriculture to himself. Land became the measurable source of wealth, which was to be passed down by inheritance through the male line of descent. Female fidelity was demanded, and marriage came to be seen as a device for ensuring that property would be transmitted to offspring of the husband. Ultimately, women and children came to be subordinate to the man, who found himself in permanent control of the sources of agrarian wealth: land and domesticated animals. We should not overstate this, however. In both primitive and agricultural stages of development, sex roles were strongly differentiated. At all stages of social development, the family has been the fundamental social institution; and women and men performed different but equally valuable roles.
These different sex roles, described above, have withstood the test of time. Their longevity has been demonstrated over many thousands of years. They have persisted so long because they fulfill an instinctive need present in all humans. It is a serious mistake to neglect this fact, and to believe that we, in the comfort of our “modern” era, are somehow different from humans in previous eras. We are now paying a high price for our arrogance. Failure to respect these traditional sex roles has corroded the bases of First World societies, with predictable results.
It was the Industrial Revolution which shattered hundreds of thousands of years of social precedent, and re-wrote the rules on a grand scale. It was even more revolutionary than the passage from the primitive stage to the agricultural stage. For our purposes, the major social result of the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century was the gradual replacement of an old ethic by a new one. The development of factories and industry favored the growth of cities; and in big cities it was easy for traditional checks on human behavior (family, religion, clan) to wither away. The primacy of the family began to be replaced by the primacy of the individual. Moral codes that had been based on family controls and religious sanction began to lose their power, as the individual, rather than the family, began to be seen as the basic unit of society.
Women were drawn into industrialized city work as traditional modes of life became less glamorous; rural depopulation began, and is still proceeding steadily. For both men and women, city life enabled the pursuit of pleasures more and more easily; men and women postponed marriage to achieve economic security, and found themselves unable to adhere to traditional religious guidance on premarital sex. This put additional pressure on ancient moral codes that valued premarital continence and female virginity.
The Industrial Revolution continues today, although it seems to have entered a post-industrial phase characterized by biotechnology, genetic engineering, and highly accelerated development of computers and machines. The traditional moral codes are under constant attack. Sex roles, we are constantly told, are as out of date as the demons and infernos of medieval theology.
Or are they?
In surveying history, what is most surprising to me is the resilience and persistence of traditional human social behaviors. Despite all our technology, we are at our core not tremendously different from our remote ancestors walking the savannas of East Africa tens of thousands of years ago. Despite all predictions of its demise, the family persists as a social unit. Sex roles have endured. The very fact that these ingrained, sex-specific behavior traits of men and women—dating from the most primitive stages of human development—have survived so long is proof of their worth in maintaining social order.
The past has not vanished. It is still here with us. The primitive phase and the agricultural phases of development are still here. It is easy to forget that the majority of humanity on Earth lives in conditions far different from those prevailing in the urban First World. This majority—the hundreds of millions living in Asia, Africa, and South America—still adhere more or less to traditional ways of doing things. It is remarkable that most of humanity is still governed by the same instincts and impulses that were found in mankind during the earlier phases of human social development. And the fertility of the simple will ensure that their numbers continue to grow, at the expense of the relatively infertile, aging populations of the First World.
The future, it seems, will belong to the past.
Are you on Twitter? Use #BackToTheKitchen to discuss your thoughts on this issue.
Read More: The Abolition of Man
I have been stating this for days. Couldn’t have said it better. Bravo! Equality of the sexes is a lie. Look to history as proof. Women have their job in the family dynamic and men have theirs….naturally.
It makes sense and is a logical progression to have a strong family to continue existing.
Mothers and fathers are both needed equally in their own specific roles for healthy family dynamics (mental emotional health). Now there are a few exceptions that price this rule.
Women are primarily nurturers and men are providers and protectors. That is the natural order.
The freedoms that women possess in western society are ALLOWED by men. Period.
The freedoms and privileges in any society is allowed and supported by men or they would not exist. Simply put.
You cannot scream we are all equal when all of your rights and privileges come from the side you want to be equal to. You have won nothing, you have earned nothing…..it was given to you.
What women espouse as rights are actually privileges of a western society. Look around the world and throughout history….tell me I’m wrong and….prove it.
Every thing on this earth was made for MEN…FEMALES included. females are the greatest accesory to men that god made. They were put here to service men in any way we want them too. Men, alpha men are the kings of the earth. We create everything, we make the discoveries, we start the businesses, we do everything. Females worlds revolve around men. The way they dress, the way they act, all they think about all day, all they talk about, why all female advertisements are just about making them look better and other things that would better themselves for men. WOMEN ARE HERE TO SERVE MEN. THEIR ANATOMY IS MADE UP IN A WAY TO WANT AND TO NEED TO SERVE MEN. THEIR ANATOMY FORCES THEM TO MAKE MEN THEIR ABSOLUTE MAIN FOCUS. THEY ARE HERE ONLY TO PLEASE MEN.
SO USE THEM FOR WHAT THEY WERE MADE FOR.
THE BIGGEST PART ABOUT IT IS THAT THEY WANT TO SERVE US
I would laugh my ass off at this……if it wasn’t so true!!!
Thank you sir for telling it like it really is. Deep down everyone knows it to be true. Societal behavior proves it
Agreed, good sir. All I see in magizine articles are “he’ll love this or that or what he thinks about this trend”. Articles which are written by women and gay men who have no right to be commenting on why straight men think or love or like. Only a straight man can. Period. End of report.
QUOTE: “WOMEN ARE HERE TO SERVE MEN …..SO USE THEM FOR WHAT THEY WERE MADE FOR.”
Agreed except for one minor, albeit major fucking difficulty: The fucking court / legal system. We canot do a dmaned thing until we do away with the powers that be that are using the system to subjegate men in the name of the BS ‘oppressed wymyn’.
Until then we have no power.
Bingo. So we know what we got to do. Now what?
LOL
Shoot all the lawyers?
God is for wussies and manginas men make themselves king, some imaginary ‘god’ did not create women to serve us, men make women serve them. You psycho idiot.
Our first femtroll. That was quick.
God>men>women>dog>dirt>wussies>manginas>feminists>Europeanpickle troll.
Tone it down, jeez. You wonder why so many people call this community misogynist.
True masculinity knows when to use caps lock.
Muahahahahahahaha!
And true feminity fears ectogenesis, and the male birth control option(s).
For when both arrive, the final nail in traditional roles may be closer than we think. However, feminism will become a curse word.
Every time a woman who could have had the option of birthing a baby in the old school sense, instead having it taken from her womb, and placed in an artificial incubator till “birth”; will curse the day women thought themselves our equal.
For in that day, what reason will a man have to marry, and maintain the safety of women? With exoskeletons, like in the movie “Elysium,” women will potentially be able to do actual war; though still men will be better.
With all of that, what “role” will they have available? Especially if forced to compete in actual “equality,” and not just in name only.
How will we as men fair?
I don’t shy away from it, but I’m not sure what it will bring either.
Yeah right and we were all supposed to be driving flying cars by now too..so much for predictions about the future.
LOL. Very true. The actual flying car does exist, and is approved for mass production last I heard. And for the unbelievably cheap price of 200-250,000 dollars, it’s yours. Oh yeah, don’t forget getting your private pilot’s license.
I suspect this technology will be available much faster than the flying car, from the auto we drive now.
Any real talk that focuses light onto gender dynamics will be “misogynist” by default isn’t it?
You have a point there. The entire Western world is basically made entire of egg shells.
Agreed. Prudence and courage (andreia) are as intrinsic to manhood as strength and boldness (thrasytes).
I’m looking forward to the day Quintus writes a post on Lysander’s famous speech.
Ah…now there’s an idea.
If so, why not a series of ideas on the theme of pre-Enlightenment masculinity:
1. Lysander and Aristotle on courage vs boldness and the mean.
2. Xenophon and the case-examples of Alexander and Alcibiades on parenting and moderation (note differences between the father-son conversations at the two ends of X’s Cyropedia).
3. Confucius on authoritative alpha leadership (ren) and the moderating/rectifying effects of the family.
4. Descartes on legitimate self-love (generosity).
His comment seemed a tad bit trollish to me. I think we are getting subversively trolled big time lately. Especially when you have 15 and 16 year old girls commenting here on a site like this. I think its inviting trouble.
I’m a sixteen year old girl and can explain to you why:Tumblr. That’s how I found this site. They posted a grouping of articles by Tuthmosis. I don’t know about the other girls, but when I find something new I like to do some research. Plus certain things apperantly were viral so it explains another reason why people are trolling this site. Another more important reason is the majority disagree with this site’s views and label them misogynistic because it doesn’t fit any feminist box. Pretty much all I can think of as to why this site’s being trolled(I still have limited knowledge of it so can’t entirely express anything about it, though, I don’t believe it misogynistic).
Interesting, another teenage girl?
It makes me wonder why they are here. I don’t feel they are searching en mass…yet. But they will. Especially when the dollar depreciates, and they see their mother’s true colors on display for all to see sans the government enforced funding.
Adversity plays a role in maturity.
Could it be that girls, who have never known a father, are perhaps perceptive enough to actualize answers from their natural predators? Or perhaps, most likely, these two teenagers I have corresponded with are just lucky trolls, who may or may not understand what they are seeing.
Either way, the manosphere serves as a beacon on dark waters. Who are we to entice certain “ships” that pass in the night to crush on the rocks. The Sirens were female after all.
I long ago saw my mother’s true colors, good sir. I can’t say that I entirely understand what I see on this site because I am not a man, I do not entirely understand them. I can’t because I am female. I don’t know about anyone else, but I decided to get it from men what they like instead of a ridiculous mag.
Your best bet would be to find a woman who has had a successful marriage of say 40+ years. And see what she thinks, then find a younger women who is successful at attracting, and keeping a younger version of a high status man.
Good luck.
But here, it is a players website. Think about it.
Pickup on all the positive, endearing cues about women we discuss in his community: be feminine, respect yourself and your body, take care of yourself and stay in shape, know how to spot a quality man – treat him well and take care of him and support him. REAL men have tremendous respect for a woman who reserves her body for the right man, and dedicates herself to making him happy and having a family with him if he so chooses to marry her and reproduce etc. Don’t feed into all the bullshit feminist garbage about how “you don’t need no man” and spending your youth chasing careers, independence, and all other selfish avenues is somehow rewarding – like ALL of these poor misguided women, you will regret it once you have hit your late 20’s. Women need men an men need women. We both have strengths and weakness in different biological and social categories that make the sex-roles discussed here function as they have and as they should for the past several hundred thousand years.
Thank you for the excellent advice. 🙂
Thank you for the advice. 🙂
Something smells fishy with this troll. I dont know what it is or what the ulterior motives are but something is not what it seems.
Remember this site has created a lot of controversy as of late and pissed off a lot of people.
Underage schoolchildren really shouldnt be reading or commenting on a mens website for adult men only.
JUST sayin’
What kind of closet fag moron starts filling the comments section with anonymous protests when young women turn their backs to feminism and look for male support and advice?
I dont know what country you are from “Lars”? You from Sweden maybe where your women make you pee sitting down?
But when a girl that announces she is a child of 16 years of age on a mature mens website in the USA, intelligent men get suspicious and concerned about certain legal issues. Dipfucks like you dont know anything about our legal system so maybe you respectfully ought to shut the fuck up.
I dont believe one fucking word of the bullshit that this so-called 16 year old troil is posting you gullible fuckwad.
aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha lemme tel u something bro
I am a female. (a FEMALE??! you shout… USING A COMPUTER!??!?) I do many things that have nothing to do with men. I write. I draw. I play music. I go for a walk. I do these things because i enjoy them, not for men or some shit.
And you read RoK.
“applies little gold sticky star to shirt”
Right on her performance sheet at feminist run day care, before she is slapped on the ass and told “Good job.”
Speaking of walking…..
Men designed your computer. Men used physical labor to produce the paper you’re writing on. You are able to take a walk in relative safety as men are available to enforce the law to protect your physical safety.
Even has someone who often disagrees with a lot of RoK articles
…Even I have to agree that this is a gross exaggeration.
Ok i am new in the site, but after reading moré and moré of it, i feel this is so RUDE and SELFISH, now i am CRYING and i feel Bad because some things that aré said about women here, is this what you wanted? Jerks
A strong, proud, feminist woman who cries because of things she reads on the Internet. Truly, feminists are a great example of stoic maturity in the face of things they don’t like. Just put on that Helen Reddy record and you’ll be all set.
That’s a guilt & shaming tactic (crying, “is that what you want”…)
You’d have better luck at some website featuring white knights. That doesn’t work here.
Go troll somewhere else
Definitely, the right leg is absolutely more useful to the act of walking than the left leg. So use them for what they were made for. The biggest part about it is that they want to serve us.
You suck.
So do you.
Always a good post with history tastefully woven into the fabric of the story which lends credence to your arguments without boring the reader.
Ever a pleasure to read, Quintus.
Thanks, man.
I want to post this important video about the lie that’s called equality.
Honestly, I think American women do “pull their weight”.
Heck, the one in front of me the other day at the Mongolian BBQ one-bowl limit lunch special had hers piled up about 18 inches high with noodles.
But… was she able to drag herself to the soda fountain?
Yes, traditional sex roles are necessary for healthy relationships and also society in general, and you you can see that more ‘primitive’ countries that still encourage them are procreating so much more and taking over the world. The west is doomed though. It’s time for this culture to die and make way for other. Too bad it probably won’t last. They will get at certain level soon enough, have something similar to feminism happen again, and then this culture will be in the same exact position we are in now and slowly dying, waiting to be replaced.
I think these cycles are also natural. Humans are not supposed to be happy and live in an ideal world with world peace and rainbows everywhere. If I learned anything from history, it’s that people never learn and always make the same mistakes their ancestors did. Just look at what ancient philosophers had to say. They were trying to prevent people of future from fucking up, and it didn’t really work. And whenever we do solve one problem, dozens of others surface.
Traditional roles are not going back, it’s like trying to fit a square-shaped object into a circular hole, and here is why:
1) Women have no reason to behave well and treat men with respect today. They don’t need men as much as they did in the past, where they literally needed a man for survival. They have the government, various organizations and shelters for women and legions of white knights, eager to protect their fair maidens.
With things being this way, women can fuck up however they want, and someone will always clean their mess. No reason to be loyal. All it takes is them feeling bored with you and everything you were trying to build is destroyed in one moment. Also media and other women don’t want their ‘sisters’ to succeed, so they spread lies and backhanded compliments (“You look so cute with the short hair!”).
2) The trust between men and women is broken. Feminists spread fear and paint all men as being natural rapists and sadists, and men stop trusting women after a few relationships, where they realize that no matter what they do, women will never be happy, and lies and manipulation both come natural to them.
Women also have the upper hand in relationships, and they can easily destroy a man’s reputation or his whole life if they want to. With unfair laws that let women take men’s children and money, and accuse them of domestic violence, rape or sexual harassment, associating with women can be really dangerous. Entering a relationship feels like she is always pointing a gun at your head, and you never know when she will decide to shoot.
3) Those roles can only exist in certain environment. As I already stated, women have no reason to be the ‘nice and submissive’ wives again. Feminism became mainstream at the exact same time when work went from really hard physical labor to sitting in an office 8 hours/day. Women have always been hypergamous opportunists. They are only loyal if they have to be. They can only act traditional when their survival depends on it.
—————————————————————————————–
With all these reasons, I think it’s quite naive to expect things to go back to ‘normal’. Even the women who claim to be traditionalists cannot be trusted. They can appeal to my instincts with this behavior, and then drop it when I’m hooked. Also all the traditional women I ever met claimed they want to get married. That should tell you something. I have yet to meet a woman who would just want to be in a relationship and enjoy the time together as a man a woman without wanting something more later, like cohabitation, marriage and children.
Healthy animals are not supposed to be self-aware and know all this. We should only follow our instincts and procreate as much as we can. We’re supposed to sacrifice our personal comfort and goals for sex, and most people do just that. Hell, the hobbies and goals of most people are made to lead to sex.
Enjoy the decline, folks. It will not get better without it getting really bad first. Then all this will happen again, and again, and again…
This in my opinion validates men keeping women in fear. In fact the fear of man is the natural order and without it they do not respect us. A woman can never respect a man who considers himself the equal of a woman. I have been through this and I’ve seen it, where a man literally tries to build a future with a woman and then she destroys everything at the drop of a hat, on a ridiculous whim. In better times this was laughable, a woman wouldn’t dare. Today this same pattern of behavior has been unleashed on society, where thousands of years of civilization building has gone to hades. Never trust women, ever. They lie, all of them do. They may not even think they’re lying but they lie with their emotions. They proclaim love, obedience, honor and eternity (forever and ever) and then boom! You must keep them on a tight leash like the Muslims do. And for all those critical of Islam, you may want to think your reappraisal of it as the West is in the process of a protracted collapse while their societies are going strong and getting stronger despite their disadvantages technologically. Lessons have been learned, and harsh lessons to boot. 1.) Women love their chains, and removing them makes them hateful and destructive 2.) Never give women any capacity for critical decision making over matters of long term anything, their fundamental group nature has been one of nihilistic instant gratification only to be thwarted by a strong patriarchy (legalized) and 3.) Keep them in constant fear, because women respond to fear differently than men do, they respect the strong alpha who lays down the law, men want to challenge him. All of these barriers have been blown up, and the flood gates have overflown with oceans of decadent corruption, lies and propaganda. One day a strong patriarchy will crush all of it, destroy it all.
How unprogressive! But yeah, I think you’re right. After all, the female behavior is driven mainly by instincts. It’s the same with animals – if you want their respect and obedience, they have to fear you and acknowledge your superiority. But once you show a sign of weakness, it may cost you your life. This doesn’t mean you should abuse your power, though. That might also have bad consequences.
Animals… really? ¬.¬
I only see a man stating that women “love their chains”. How could a man know what a woman does or does not love? Well… he can’t. Just as a woman could not know what a man does or does not love. Besides, despite the fact that there are certain behavior patterns (that are usually different in each society) behind each person’s actions that influence how they think and act, there is also an individual conscience (that establishes personal opinions and tastes), so it is rather ridiculous to speak as if every single person from one ethnicity/gender/religion/sexual orientation group behaves and thinks the same way.
The amount of self-pity in this website is incredible. Seriously… the victimization level is over 9000! Quite ironic if you consider how much every other text complains about how women victimize themselves.
“This in my opinion validates men keeping women in fear.”
Your rationalization would amuse me if it didn’t indicate a much deeper social problem. But I will not get into that because I know I would be banging my head against a concrete wall. Suffice it to say that if you need women around you to fear you in order to respect you, you must behave in a way that does not elicit much adimiration (which, in case you haven’t heard, also generates respect).
In other words, you had the same bad relationship experience that almost everyone does by the time they’re a teenager, only with your emotional coping skills you went full Taliban instead of dealing with it like an adult.
Awesome read. Very detailed and informative. I was explaining to a female a few weeks ago that sex roles are not “social constructs.” They are based on biological realities. Our denial of these biological realities, our insistence that “men and women are equal” has led to this modern “war between the sexes.” We are essentially trying to go against our very nature. In everything that is present in nature, from the way microscopic atoms interact with each other to the way stars are formed, masculine and feminine principles are at play, and each principle plays a very specific role. Humanity is no different except that our capacity for thought and reflection sometimes proves to be detrimental rather than beneficial. We can think, but not all thought is “good,” so to speak. When we start thinking that we can go against natural law, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.
I am a female and in happy relationship. I work and support myself and he is glad I feel free and have control over my life. We are not in war.
What do I do? What should he do?
I dunno, the blue one.
So if there is no universal recipe and we are both happy, what is the point of roles?
Roles are for the people who need them. Just because there’s no universal recipe doesn’t mean that a standard template is worthless.
Yes, a role may feel safe. And also limiting. It depends on person. We should be aware that there are options, but not push each other into them because someone believes “nature intended”.
Is he really happy? I was in such a relationship for 8 years and knew something was wrong but couldn’t touch it. I had to end it prematurely to realize I was being played and pushed around. It’s not just about you. It’s not just about the couple. You have to ask yourself if he’s doing the things he wants to, if he’s had a chance to seeks his goals alongside yours’. Do not make his goals you own and subvert them into something you can use.
Men nowaways grow up hearing we need to cater to women’s needs and please them, be nice to them. That’s recipe for unhappiness.
Women nowadays (and since forever) grow up hearing we need to cater to men’s needs and please them, be nice to them. That’s recipe for unhappiness.
If a person is unhappy, they can always leave.
We talk. That is our recipe for happiness. There is no mystery.
I am not making his goals my own, he does what he loves. I am not pushing him to find a job that would give him more money or anything like that.
What is needed is basic respect for another human being, regardless of sex organs.
What would be the point of roles? It means determining our lives based on a certain biological trait, like color of skin or a sex organ.
Whoever is unhappy, they can leave and find a more suitable partner. It is very simple.
That’s perfect. Talking and discussing, even if heated at times, are the way to go. Often there is no middle ground and there’s no point keeping score on arguments. If you both can find a balance in those decisions then everyone is happy.
I agree. Talking, an approach so simple that we wonder why we don’t use it more often…
People generally, regardless of sex, may not be fond of being pushed into roles…
As long as you both enjoy being with each other, and can laugh and have fun together – then dont worry about anything else. Just enjoy the moments you have. Just remember, if one leaves…its hard if not impossible to get them back.
I think sometimes people take it for granted. And when somebody has gone forever…it hurts.
If they leave, they needed to leave and no role will ever stop them from leaving.
According to ROK, if you as the woman are not miserable and afraid in your relationship then you’re doing it wrong.
I have a question for you then: how do you expect our species to “evolve” without going against what is “natural”?
Well, evolution happens over the course of many generations. But if you mean make progress in a more general sense, it’s important to understand natural predilictions as best as possible so that wise decisions can be made.
Human nature is like the current of a river or in the ocean. You can navigate against the current but there are costs to doing so, and you have to know where those forces are pushing if you don’t want to get lost or run aground.
It is impossible to evolve. Humans as you see them today were always the same although living under different conditions. Humans were created as they are by the gods (aliens)in Caucasia; or perhaps humans are their descendants who devolved by mating with primitive Africans.Cain as I mentioned was originally a son of the gods but after committing murder was banished and he and his children began to have sex with primitive earth negroes( a different species but close enough to mate like a dog and a wolf) Our scientists at the Pavlov institute in Moscow will tell you the same.
And you were created when aliens mated with blonde-haired
asses or mules in Caucasia, under the supervision of the scientists at the Pavlov Institute of “de-genetics”
Enough of your scientology bullshit. Since you probably don’t
have qualified shrinks at the Pavlov Institute to treat you, you could try some in America. Even a quack shrink would be able to sort you right.
Equal does not mean the same in a “Harrison Bergeron” sense. And last I checked, we don’t distribute social rights or status by size or strength. If your biological reality is that you are weaker and less fit to throw a spear than the next guy, should you have less rights and be designated to a social role subordinate to him in the pecking order? Oh wait, I forgot that ROK ascribes to the philosophy that classifies men in the same way that Brave New World does. Carry on then.
Unpopular Opinion Alert: If you take the ufological perspective on human origins, you could argue that traditional sex roles were proposed and implemented by human-like extraterrestrials who created our species through genetic manipulation and founded our early civilizations and religions. This is taking the stance that the “God” of the old testament (Jehova) was a cranky ET tired of base human behavior who issued the Ten Commandments on a remote mountaintop while dazzling Moses with smoke and flashing lights coming out of the sky.
Just look at the origins of agriculture – sudden invention in the highlands of the middle east and not in the lush river valleys and growing crops that didn’t appear naturally? yeah right. No wonder the Paleo diet is such the craze.
This may seem like complete rubbish to a lot of you, so I ask – think critically before you react to this post (assuming you have a reaction at all lolz).
“Prometheus” sucked. Ridely Scott should be ashamed on his work.
Origins of agriculture? Agriculture was developed thousands of years before the invention of written language. The only meager hint of the early development of agriculture is sparse archaeological data and theories from historians – which all basically point to the Fertile Crescent in Southwest Asia.
Origins of agriculture? We know almost nothing for two thousand years ago.
I considered your comment, then I continued scrolling.
After some critical thinking, I have reached the following conclusion…
Aliens are the invention of the CIA and NASA. You do not get the memo?
It’s great to see Ufology being mentioned in the most unlikely of places…
This type of speculation is of very little consequence if you’re willing to accept the present day “facts” of the matter. Namely, that the United States has been harboring and studying these extraterrestrial beings for some time now while reverse-engineering their spacecraft and that Area S4 is the most probable location for these two ongoing black programs. Any UFOs that we might see hovering over US airspace today are man-made saucers that have been back-enginered at S4 by men like Bob Lazar. These types of craft run on antigravity propulsion and we’ve apparently been shooting down a great number of these ET vehicles over the years for the purpose of back-engineering the technology.
Here’s some interesting testimony on the subject of ET technology:
good read and very true. 1000s of years of instinct and tradtion cannot be done away of 60yrs of socialization. Whose to say being rich in luxury would cause negative fertility. Through out time, there was always a luxury of some sort owned by certain familys that didn’t turn them into DINKS(double income no kids). Its not like smartphones and computers were the tipping point.
I do recommend at looking at these demographics which I find interesting when you wiki HDI on wiki that kinda up tears up the myth that poor countrys have numerous kids(its cause of western influence going in to control the population and “empower women”, Which wont be a good idea otherwise they wind up like japan with a large aging population which would be devasting in a poor nation. Children are investments and seniors are burdens.(no offence unless they can teach their knowledge and skill)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
You should check Hans Roslings work on demographics and he does touch on traditional gendar roles as 1 of the factors that causes fertitlty to drop(not income entirely income)
Iranian politicans today are rather worried since women overrepresnt in education and are working which is causing the population to age(they also had a very effective family planning under the western back shah which dropped it population growth) which is really bad for a poor nation. Japan is highly devolped and they are having a hard time with a 25% aged population. Puts a lot of strain on its pension system so they increased retirement age too 77…Really brutal. To think how bad itll be for poor nations.
Id like to see these articles not just go mainstream but also into other languages so other nations don’t repeat our mistakes.either it be from conservative nations to the most liberal. Itll be nice to see a translater from Arabic Persian hindhi to german Swedish Turkish. THat way well have a wider audience and more interesting
viewpoints on mascualinity. We can take the best from each other.
course some of them wont need game since they have a normal masculine femine culture based on tradition(being a good provider for example). rather then an adrogenous society,
where the fuck have you inbreds come from, the fucking dark ages by the look of it. sad fucking people, Im guessing you must all have problems with women whic is why you have this attitude towards them. Unreal
lulzlolzolz ” you must all have problems with women”
No mention of basement or tiny penis? This is an OUTRAGE!!
Please don’t be so funny, I woke my mom up laughing.
What’s amazing is people like this probably honestly believe they’re being pleasant and tolerant in all things.
Yup. Most of the time they’re the most intolerant of all.
The author didn’t have an “attitude” towards women.
Go fly a kite.
From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Says who? The one who whines about no good men being left?
Great read. It is obvious now that most sciences converge to the same conclusion, that families were the heart of societies for most of their development. Parental investment is especially high in the human species, where children need a very long time to become fully grown. Consequently there is a need for males to invest their time and resources in their family and for females to be faithful to them and considerate of that investment. Even with the abundance of resources we have now, this structure is still the most efficient.
I am a 19 year old Christian girl and I strongly believe in traditional gender roles, so I was very pleased to see such a big group of men who also support the traditional ideals of male provider, female homemaker. I desire to get married and have children and spend my days cooking, cleaning, and making my husband happy. Then I came to your website and realised I can’t support you at all.
1 – You openly encourage men to have sex with lots of women before marriage. I am saving myself for marriage and will expect my future husband to do the same, as I know that is what God wants. I think you will find most women who want to remain virgins until marriage will not want to marry a man who fornicates.
2 – You believe that it is okay for men to commit adultery. I do not want to marry a man who believes adultery is ever okay. Not only is it a sin but I would be distraught if my husband cheated and I dread to think of the impact it would have on my children. You also applaud men who ‘trade in’ their older wives for younger women. This disgusts me – if I honour a man by providing him with children, caring for him and his home and always striving to stay slim and attractive then I will expect him to honour me by being loyal to me even when age makes me not so attractive, just as I will for him.
3 – You discourage men from marriage. You tell them they can be just as happy never being married and simply sleeping with lots of girls. This is not what God wants and it is not what I want for the men of society either.
I believe in traditional gender roles and I wanted to support this website and campaign but it would seem you only want women to take their traditional role and you want to continue being deviant. I think you will have a hard time getting women to support you if you continue like this.
Calma don sister, why we make a big deal because cheating? Is POSSIBLE to love truly more than one person, cheating is Bad only when the other person used you and didnt feel anything for you.
I am an ULtra Empowered GIrl and i believe in my Right to love all the men i want without Being called a Whore, because i know too many hot men ,not just 1 hot men, and i could feel true love for all of them, marriage is something for 30’s years old people, just CHILL, besides i dont responsabilities like children until my forcé is Gone in my 30’s and i dont have not hong better to do ; )
You are a whore.
We don’t want women to support us. We have lost faith in them for good.
I bet that you are the kind of guys who say you want a traditional woman who is a virgin, then when you find one you dump her when she won’t have sex with you and say she is a prude, then you come on here to complain that there are no good women out there.
There’s quite a bit of diversity with both the authors and the readership of this site. I can sympathize quite a bit with your reaction. And there’s no need for you to “support” any campaign – it’s mostly a troll effort against feminists.
Nope. You keep the one that is a virgin and satisfy yourself with other women until you marry the virgin. Been done that way for many millennia.
Remember, there is no cheating outside of marriage…just fornicating….which is wrong also….but its not cheating.
That’s why prostitutes should be valued and celebrated. Careful professionals, highly trained, skilled courtesans who take care of men, and take on their excesses and entertainments if they are unmarried or their wives aren’t covering every base. I see the value.
so do I!!
1 – True, most of the commenters do. But the point is to have the attitude and social skills of a man who could have sex if he wants, rather than degenerate into a socially awkward nerd with a neckbeard who plays WoW all day.
2 – As far as adultery goes, it’s less bad if the man does it than the woman. If the woman does it, the marriage is dead. As far as trading in wives, I don’t agree with that. Instead, I think a man should marry a woman ten years younger than himself so he won’t have the urge to do that in the first place. After all, nowadays, men are pressured to marry women their own age, and if he’s 40 and confident and successful, shackled to a 40-year-old woman, and getting the eye from lots of 25- to 30-year-old women, it’s bound to happen. Unless they were high-school sweethearts with that long history, the memory of her youth, and several kids together, there’s bound to be trouble.
3 – I don’t agree with the marriage-strikers when it comes to “all women are evil, never get married”. But I do think a man needs to be extremely careful and be able to weed out sluts, crazies, and other undesirable women.
Perhaps you think adultery is not as bad if the man does it, but I don’t think that wives would agree with you! I would be devastated if my husband cheated to the point where I don’t know if I could continue with the marriage. I would not be able to trust him and a marriage cannot work without trust. I would never want to divorce but in the Bible it says you are allowed to if your partner is doing things that go against God and adultery definitely falls into that category.
I only want to marry a man a few years older than myself, not 10 years. I do not want him to be an old man when my children are still in school. Throughout the years men have married women around their age and managed to remain faithful. There is no excuse, I am not denying that men will still find young women attractive but if marriage and family is important to them then they need to have self control.
Define “old”. You mean, if he’s 60 and you’re 50?
Any guy that gets married is an IDIOT. Christian or not.
By the way, women are not allowed to comment on this site.
“Throughout the years men have married women around their age and managed to remain faithful.”
The fact that you are correct does mean you are not also deluded.
Throughout the history of Christendom men have married women young enough to have been their school age daughters, and through much of that history were not even expected to remain faithful.
She doesn’t factor in the fact that men who marry women their own age and remain faithful are usually betas. Or they married when she was young and hot.
Paedophile!
Cry to the mods, why don’t you.
In case you haven’t figured it out, this website is a lot less censorship-prone than equivalent feminist sites despite what it says in the “about” section. Because most commenters here do not fear being challenged.
No one gives a shit about your solipsistic opinion. You want to be a righteous woman? Then shut your fucking mouth and do some housework. Stop complaining on a MENS website about how YOU want it to be.
No one here gives a rats ass about your fair weather “support” you fucking imbecile.
Btw my girlfriend is 10 yrs younger than me so go fuck yourself. U jelly?
Doubt you will ever find any “man” with your stupid ideas on what a relationship looks like. You are a future divorcee to a churchian chump whose balls never descended.
Your idea of a beta (a loyal Christian man) is mine and most Christian women’s idea of a good husband.
I thought management banned women on sight here.
15 and16 year-old girls, 19 year old bible-thumping girls…
Holy fucking christ whats next??
Place is going downhill fast.
Actually, by far the biggest problem at the moment with this site is a traditional girl hating closet faggot who signs with “guest”.
So says the White Knight mangina faggot. You just proved my point.
Go crawl back under the rock you came out from. This site isnt for White Knight queerbait underachievers like you.
I like young traditional girls, you can’t stand them. This is a site that celebrates and promotes traditional young women, so why the hell are you here? Go hate somewhere else, try Jezebel. And stop rehashing my insults, it just shows your lack of intellect.
I cannot a disagree with your comments. they are biblically supported.
1. It is great that you are saving yourself for marriage. keep at it. You are way ahead of the game on that point. The Majority of men (90-95%) won’t be virgins when they marry but maybe you will find one that is. on that I wish you luck.
2. Adultery is wrong period. it is common place throughout history and in the bible but it is no less wrong. Normally it is the fault of both parties, the man for straying (if he is the one to stray) and the woman for not taking care of his physical needs. There are plenty of sins out there that people do all the time everyday. from lying, to stealing, to coveting, to not remembering the sabbath (which is sunset friday to sunset saturday, biblically speaking). No one of them is greater than the other but all have consequences. Trading in an older good wife for a younger one is foolishness. If she is a good woman, a submissive woman, a God fearing woman…..she is a keeper. The difference between adultery with men and women is that most women will take the men back and question what the women did wrong to cause him to stray. Most men won’t take the women back and don’t care what made them stray.
3. Men in the West (America, Canada etc.) shouldn’t marry in America especially. The divorce laws are completely against them. its illogical to do so. Now, if they want to marry, they should do it in another country. God does intend men and women to be married but he also left instructions on the roles of husbands and wives in marriage. Most western women are not marriage material. They have no repect for themselves or men. They are …rotten. Most…not all.
4. You are also forgetting about polygamy which is rampant in the bible…God doesn’t have a problem with a man having many wives….its not a sin.
but don’t take my word for it….trust your own bad eye. 🙂
The men on this site aren’t looking for support from women…why would we? We don’t need it. We know we have the power.
I think that your last comment is foolish. Men are the leaders but you always need support from women. A man is the head, a woman is the neck – the head is useless without the neck. We both have our role to play and neither of us could work without the other.
Men could work without women. We could not survive as a species without women. We would be lonely without women. Life would not be anywhere near as enjoyable without women. We would lose something precious and beautiful without women and our sense of purpose would be greatly lessened without women…..but men could survive without women. Biblically, men existed before women. Women were made from a part of men. not the other way around. A good woman is one of the greatest blessings a man can have. And a rotten one, his greatest curse.
And the correct statement is the man is the head and the woman is the body.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
God, Love, Honest Loyal faithful women, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy.
Question.
What do all the above have in common?
The words above? They have in common that they were typed by an annoying person.
You should spend your time or productively.
Whatever dude. Im sure my life is far more productive that a dude whose avatar pic looks like Barney Fife.
Mayberry RFD called – one of their White Knights is missing.
That’s cute.
White knights aren’t RoK contributers like myself.
Your god dont like men and he or she wanna get rid of all men, why men would be Christian then?
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/testicles-penis-male-y-chromosome-genetics-sex
1. You are to be commended. If you want the virgin husband, marry sooner rather than later. Give him the gift of your youth and your beauty.
2. I have seen no one “applauding men trading in their older wives for younger women.” More often than not, it is the wife who is treacherous and jettisons her family and her vows because she thinks that life will be better that way.
3. Men are discouraged from marriage here primarily for two simple, indisputable reasons: “no-fault” divorce and family courts biased toward women. (see #2 above)
You’ve made a few erroneous presumptions.
I don’t recall RoK promoting adultery. Also, it is not necessarily encouraging men to have sex with lots of women.
Usually the “manosphere” supports both men who enjoy short-term relationships as well as long term relationships. It gives them information for “game” useful in both situations for the betterment of BOTH the man & the woman and leaves the choice up to them.
That is, providing harsh truths about the sexes and what a man needs to know to better himself & his behavior to avoid problems that come from lacking what a woman wants & respects in a man.
You will find if you look more closely that generally the men here disrespect slutty, loose, arrogant, & entitled women. We are smart enough to know that some such as yourself (or not too different) are much less likely to be a problematic wife, but in fact you appear to have redeeming qualities many men would appreciate.
Think about it.
I agree with you but that’s what feminism has created.
Feminism is the result of a Godless society. I do not need feminism. I do not need any political movement aimed at getting some false ‘equality’ with men because I know there is true equality between men and women under God – he created us different but we are both of equal worth. If God was more prevalent in our society then there would be no need for feminism and women wouldn’t feel the need to take part in sinful behaviours.
Hey
hey guys
You know why “traditional sex roles” are slowly being torn apart? BECAUSE WE DONT LIVE IN THE FUCKING 12TH CENTURY ANYMORE YOU ABSOLUTE CRETINS…….. they shouldn’t apply because we are living in a world where men no longer NEED to be the big strong fighter off of tigers and stuff, and where women no longer NEED be the primary caretakers of their children.
And as civilization collapses (thanks to people like you), that day will come again.
That’s what you will be telling your wife when you catch her with the plumber.
Hahaha, zing
“men no longer NEED to be the big strong fighter off of tigers. . . ”
. . . lions and bears.
If you really want us to stop, I don’t think you’re going to be a very happy camper. The reason you don’t see them isn’t because they’re not there.
The fact of the matter is that we do it every day, in North American, African and Asian cities, and do it so well that you’re clueless about what we are doing to keep your ungrateful life safe and put food on your table . . . while you sleep.
The calender is not relevant. Biology is.
Well, given that we’re not far off Tigers being extinct I think it’s fair to say that the statement “we are living in a world where men no longer NEED to be the big strong fighter off of tigers” is quite true.
The only problem I have with the #backtothekitchen hashtag is that none of these 21st Century women were there in the first place, so it’s sort of inaccurate.
Where did that magnificent article by Billy Chubbs go?
that was a brilliantly objective depiction of the past. now we need to design, propose, negotiate and win a good plan for the future. ideally women would perceive the plan as a win-win deal
Enjoyed it!
I saw your deep blue eyes from afar
I saw you at the church bazaar
I asked the priest to introduce me to your mother
And I asked her to introduce us to each other
I asked you to go on a picnic of our own
But you insisted on taking a chaperone
I apologized for being so bold and rude
So I invited your parents for lemonade and food
We’re saving ourselves
Saving ourselves for marriage
Saving ourselves, for a baby carriage
Restraining ourselves, till the moment’s right
Saving ourselves, for our wedding night
After four years of dating, I decided to take a risk
I held both your hands, and kissed your rose-petaled lips
We stared into each others’ eyes, wondering what was next
But we knew not to ruin our love with pre-marital sex
We’re saving ourselves
Saving ourselves for marriage
Saving ourselves, for a baby carriage
Restraining ourselves, till the moment’s right
Saving ourselves, for our wedding night
Years went by, our courtship was grand
One day I asked your father for your hand
I’d never treat you like an object, only like a lady
I’d never consider having sex, except to have a baby
Too bad that does not exist anymore hardly, and a woman like that actually never need worry about being put on the street.
A woman like that, even if butt ugly, was shown around town proudly by his man.
Now, we just throw ugly ones away because ugly, plus feminist cancer equals not boning with your penis.
Feminist cancer with grade 12/10 looks equals regular boning with rubber, no marriage or kids.
No feminist cancer, not even a cell, and average looks means a keeper nowadays.
No cancer at all, and insane looks means she does not exist.
I was watering my rose garden and you walked by my place
I almost ran up to you in a lustful, unsensitive haste
I almost cried cause I acted so insensitive
But I wanted you to know about the feather-soft warmth I could give
The OP’s grasp of the paleolithic age is totally and completely false. Paleo people didn’t have anything even approaching the nuclear family. Neither did the ancient Greeks, nor the Tainos, nor the native Tahitians, nor the Inuit, the list goes on. Really the nuclear family is honestly an aberration FORCED on us by religion and culture and politics. As a matter of fact, ironically the nuclear family as a unit of society did not exist UNTIL the Industrial Revolution. If you’re going to make a post like this, at least have your basic history in place!!
What are you talking about? The nuclear family had existed since the days of farms and agrarian production. See the classic reenactments of history, featuring distinct roles? And what the hell? Traditional families forced on us by religion, culture, politics? What does that even mean?
Sexual division was seen as far back as the hominids. The idea of sexual dimorphism, and hunting/gathering was practiced since the Neolithic era.
You don’t believe me? Look at native tribes practicing division of labor. They’ve been doing that since long before the Industrial Revolution.
Get out of your Marxist indoctrination, which coerced you with the idea of “oppression,” and study history.
Well, there is oppression, of course. I personally don´t think it is of men over women (well, unless we are talking about Afghanistan). I am a Marxist, so I see it as class warfare with many nuances (following Bourdieu´s theory of fields), but it is there to anybody that wants to see. Now, men on women? Nope.
Are you familiar with the works of Theodore Veblen?
Love Veblen. A “technocracy”, the book on the leisure class, his weird behavior, a real act.
“I am a Marxist”
disgusting.
You don´t like books, don´t you?
“The nuclear family had existed since the days of farms and agrarian production.”
Which is, by definition, Neolithic.
“Sexual division was seen as far back as the hominids.”
He didn’t say anything about sex roles.
“Look at native tribes practicing division of labor.”
Most of which do so in an extended family structure. The extended family is not the same as a nuclear family.
Disclaimer of Bias: I am not, nor have I ever been a Marxist.
The nuclear family as we know it did NOT exist in the ancient world, much less in Greece and Rome where western civilization came from. And Marxist indocrtination? The Soviets for example were more prudish than anybody in the west. I’m in favor of one big orgy, personally. And this is the way it was in the PALEOlithic era, before we started to lose our way with all that agriculture bullshit.
I’m not even talking about division of labor here, we’re talking about sex and relationships. But anyways in hunter-gatherer socieities if all the men in the tribe were killed off, some of the women became de facto men, they acted like men and underwent hormonal changes which changed their musculature and made them sterile, the whole nine.
Bottom line, men AND women are NEVER gonna be satisfied with just one sexual partner. I’ve seen it in many countries in cultures that I have travelled and lived in. We like our variety, period, and society should reflect that. No laws, no bullshit. Just let nature take its course.
I have studied history, you’re completely wrong. The nuclear family as we knew it is very new, and not working very well. And Paleolithic and Neolithi sex was generally GROUP sex.
What it means is we need to get back to THAT. To our natural sexuality. Very very few people want monogamy at the deepest level.
It surprises me that you make a statement that questions whether or not traditional sex roles are being challenged, and then refuse to back your argument with historical facts — all the while claiming they are “resilient and persistent.” I highly doubt that the patriarchal primogenital nature of 17th century England is pertinent to today’s society — so your claim, Quintius, is unconvincing. In fact, I would even go so far as to deride it as absolutely shoddy journalism, leading me to hope that this was not your degree. Moreover, “traditional” Western sex roles are by no means necessary for the creation of a stable society. Let us examine Archaic/Classical Sparta, for instance. Sparta was a society that actively empowered its female members, even to the point of enabling wife-sharing amongst different Spartiates. Clearly the purpose was the procurement of more Spartan citizens. However, we can see how this upsets the belief of “One man, one woman.” — suddenly its one woman, many men, which, if we were to follow your logic, cause chaos for your average primogenital society. Despite this, the Spartans were the hegemonic power of Greece following the Peloponnesian War. Their demise had very little to do with the sex role — contrary to what your article seems to claim.
Lastly, your argument that “it is remarkable that … the fertility of the [developing world] simple will ensure that their numbers continue to grow, at the expense of the relatively infertile, aging populations of the First World” and its attribution to the claim that changing sex roles will undermine a population is fallacious when we consider the work of Hans Rosling, famed statistician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvdeEi2mEc
I highly advise you watch this and educate yourself before you continue making claims like the above.
Ultimately, it was adhering to the archaic phalanx unsupported by light troops — that Lacedaemonian conservatism — that did the Spartans in at Mantineia in 362 BC. You maintain this archaic frame of mind and you’ll wind up same as them.
The purpose of the article was to describe–insofar as it is possible in less than 1500 words–the features of the 3 phases of human development: primitive, agricultural, and industrial.
It was necessary to do this because many young men today need to arm themselves with a proper knowledge of anthropology and social development. It goes hand-in-hand with history. We have been accepting the feminist narrative of history for so long that these basic truths are being forgotten.
People need to recognize that gender roles have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. In each phase of social development, those gender roles had special features. I discuss those here. I hope I have provided something useful for the casual reader.
You provided something much more useful that some bloviating windbag spouting off words like “primogenital”, referencing a battle from 362 BC and linking to some dry 59 minute video – on a mens game site.
Jeez, and I thought I had problems gettin’ laid.
A few of my female friends in Bulgaria and Ukraine very fervently believe that sex roles exists for a solid reason and should never be questioned. It’s a damn beautiful thing; it adds to my inspiration to develop myself into the greatest and best man I can possibly be to fulfill my role as a man, while feminine women fulfill their roles as women.
He’s right about the sexual division of labour and the focus on tribe success not individual success. It’s a short article , not a lot of room to get too specific.
There is a glaring omission in this otherwise very fine article. That is that men created the industrial revolution. Men invented all of it. Then we built all of it.
How did that get turned against us? Democracy and allowing women to vote.
I agree with a previous commenter. Muslims do have some things right. In particular, they keep women in their proper place. Thus, they are not circumvented by the emotional distractions and irrationality of women. Unfortunately, some of them ruin things for all Muslims with their absurd interpretation of their religion. However, I believe they will eventually overcome this problem. They were once very inventive and in fact among the most advanced civilizations. They will be again. And they will do so with their women in tow instead of at their side.
Seriously, if those societies were not so screwed up by the practice of fanatic Islam, I would move to one of those countries. (Note: fanatical Islam has little to do with their keeping women in kitchen; that is more of a wise cultural trait). We have much to learn from the Islamic countries and perhaps it’s time we start.
Well said.
Soo….what exactly was “turned against you” ?
One of the things I find myself wondering about after reading this article about traditional sex roles is: At what point was the modern blow job invented?
That might seem a non sequitur, but stick with me. I suppose the modern blow job was something that came out of the industrial revolution. But did women pick up on what gay men were doing? I ask that because men invented pretty much everything, even the blow job I assume.
As a guy that will never get married due to our dysfunctional society, I am very thankful for the modern blow job. The modern blow job and anal sex, actually.
Contemporary women are sluts and their pussies are worn out by age 25. Plus, with all the penises that have been in them, they are loaded with bacteria and thus generally smelly as hell. I still want sex though. So getting a blow job is a good and often the only option. A woman’s mouth never seems to wear out. In fact, they just get stronger the more blow jobs they provide.
I’m pretty sure blow jobs were given long before Herodote wrote his Histories.
Maybe so. However, during the medieval period, many of the things invented by the Greeks and Romans were forgotten, forbidden, or otherwise lost. That is why the Renaissance is called the Renaissance – around 1450, Europe started to remember some of the things forgotten during the classical period.
Now, perhaps someone remembered blow jobs during the Renaissance period and re-introduced them. I don’t know.
What I do know is that most men never tire of learning more about blow jobs. So, I would very much appreciate it if the ROK researchers would look into the history of blow jobs and report on that topic for us. The title could be something like, “The Vital Role Blow Jobs Play in Traditional Gender Roles.”
If ROK will not do a write up on the history of blow jobs, who will?
Philip Seymour Hoffmann, my favorite actor, died of an overdose of heroine this week. Hoffmann, THE phenomenol actor of this AGE, however, was also quite obese/out of shape. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. He had money, fame, and could very well get any piece of ass (ala the casting couch) he wanted! So why the addiction to drugs and obesity? And why was he married to a sub-average chick? What a selfish prick to leave behind two kids. Being a Beta will fucking kill you! Hoffmann is a testament to that.
He was also an outspoken proponent of gun control. In my mind, this fact furthers your claim that he was beta.
So are we the rest of the world “beta”? Only in America. And of course, I am very sad about Hoffman. I understand that not everybody can be an actor, and they have lots of inner turmoil, but after success you would expect to see him happy and abandoning his early addictions.
It means the rest of the wolrd pretty much abhorrs independent men. I’m not sure that this is the same thing as “beta”, but there certainly is a connection.
It’s a fundamentally American attitude to see the state as a mere organization. European often tend to see it as the manifestation of the public will – a “family” of sorts – and hence their willingness to surrender to it.
Your answer really illuminates the difference, thank you.
Yes, we see the State as “our” thing. And if we are against it, it is because we want it to be more “our” thing. The State is in my country not my enemy, but my enabler. It should defend me against injustice, it should give me the secure place where I can develop my abilities, it should even help me to develop new things and ideas. Men alone are eaten by wolves. The State is the sum of our collective wills.
Men alone perish, but I rather put my trust in family and friends than a super state with millions of people.
I’m German myself, but I do know how Americans tick and my own world-view isn’t exactly widespread in either country.
Ridiculous.
The State is evil incarnate. The State IS your enemy. You are not the fucking State.
“Yes, we see the State as “our” thing. And if we are against it, it is because we want it to be more “our” thing. ”
Wake up, when you watch a football game do you see the the team as “yours”?
“It should defend me against injustice, it should give me the secure place where I can develop my abilities, it should even help me to develop new things and ideas. ”
“should”? what fucking planet are you on. Do you see any fucking injustice being defended against by the State? It is the State that dispenses INJUSTICE.
The State cannot “give” you (nor does it) anything because it has NOTHING to give. The State only TAKES by force.
“The State is the sum of our collective wills.”
This is absurd. There is no such thing as a “collective will”
Fuck the State.
The biggest insult to biology is how both the media and academics keep disseminating the same bullshit that men and women’s brains evolved the same because they ‘look’ the same (even that is questionable, refering to some recent studies on wiring). An evolutionary pressure differential between the brain of the human male and the female is inconceivable to these people, even if well-established in the animal kingdom, because it doesn’t fit the egalitarian narrative (let alone that of female primacy).
Read sex at dawn for an interesting perspective on pre-agrarian sexual/social structure.
Its all about testosterone and oestrogen. if you get that wrong, its your past issues talking and not biology.
Men who were too old to hunt were in the village full time. They were leaders, shamans, teachers, and I suspect builders.
I hate to say, and hope I’m wrong, but every year it seems the rest of the world mimics the American culture. Here in Brazil it’s been picking up speed way quicker since the internet and smartphones became mainstream. Soon enough, perhaps in 10 years, the feminist agenda will be ingrained in our society just as much as in the USA.
Nomenclature is important and has serious political and ideological influence. If you say “traditional”, it implies returning to the past and that is anathema to current political wisdom. The word “role” implies something artificial and easily changeable. We know better.
Change the language, change the debate.
Natural gender behaviors
Learn that phrase. Use it often.
Complementary differentiated behaviors. Sounds good, ah? Don´t use the world “natural”. There is nothing “natural” about civilization.
Anthropologists tell us that the human race has gone through distinct phases in its development.
You pyjama and blanket boys need to listen to a woman because I am the only one on here with any real knowledge of anthropology, biology, medicine and science.
Things have always been the same between sexes and even jobs were the same.
Men were hunters but depending on where they lived were also herdsman, raised the animals, bred them and killed them to eat.Also caught the fish.
Women would still collect things and also grow them on farm. Farming was viewed as a lower occupation.In the Bible it tells you this where Cain had a low job at farming that women do and got jealous of brother who was cattleman and killed him.Cain was a pyjama boy like you on here.He stayed close to home like a girl and grew cabbages because he was afraid of the cattle.
We Russian girls know that man even tiny man is braver and stronger than a woman and we only assist at a man’s job if necessary when all hands are needed.
If man raises sheep he must tend them and protect from wolves and brigands. Then kill to eat or shave their fur. We then weave it into yarn in safety of home and then man manufacturers it into cloth. Or know men how to tan hide for shoes. As I said we only assist if necessary because we are not helpless and are intelligent but not as brave and must take care and protect babies.
A woman also knows about drugs from collecting plants and is good as a doctor but she cannot tolerate a lot of work or tension so she cannot be overworked, only men can.
Oh! Finally an opinion from the closet feminist part of the world. A closet feminist finally speaks.
Thank you Russian girl for enlightening us.
We will shave the fur for your fur coats. Do you want us to shave bears also for your coats?
Besides, Cain was not a pyjama boy.
“Cain is also described as a city-builder, and, through three sons of his son five times remote, as the forefather of tent-dwelling pastoralists, all lyre and pipe players, and the bronze and iron smiths, respectively.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_and_Abel
Не врите, пожалуйста.
So much for your spreading your half-assed knowledge, Дура.
“A woman also knows about drugs
Go fire up a bowl of Krokodil ya dumb suchka.
“I am the only one on here with any real knowledge of anthropology, biology, medicine and science.”
You left out the most arrogant.
can anyone tell me; has the UN officially adopted traditional sex roles week? If so how will it be promoting this brave new agenda in countries around the world? I think getting the Nordic Council of Ministers to come round to this way of thinking will take some work
This is written by western males who clearly have no concept of a farm or Bedouin
That is actually not what happened in the Middle East, a very Occident- centric view of the world. While Muslim women had the right to vote in Medina and right to own property in 600 AD, in Canada, women became persons in 1920!!!! The prophet Mohammed worked for a female CEO known as Khadija who dispatched caravans for trade. He liked her, was known to be honest and proposed to her though she was older. She said yes. Here we had a political leader marrying a business leader, and both had a happy marriage for as long as she lived. She died, and then, to make peace among tribes, the prophet mohammed had to accept several woman. His favorite of course was the one who became a professor, and when he died, coup leader. Many Muslim women fought for Islam with the men, were given equal pay for equal work by the Prophet and one saved his life.
——————-
It is only when the British and Americans intervened in Saudi Arabia that the new crazy anti-local feminist oppressive Islam known as Wahibism was born. Not only do most Wahabis have trouble getting laid outside of the Saudi legend of 72 virgins in heaven, but Al-Qaeyda and their backers are crazy violent pyschos (the official Koran version says 72 nyph-like servants attending you, not virgins). So this is the white male legend of why he is supreme. Next time, add fairies and unicorns to the story so at least it will be entertaining if it isn’t true.
I’m not sure If I agree with all of your conclusions, but I intend to look deeper into Wahibism thanks to your comment. I believe there is some merit to your criticism of the article as being heavily Eurocentric in it’s historical perspective.
“Traditional sex roles” is a organizational oversimplification that puts onerous pressure on some men and women to fit a mold that they are not necessarily individually suited for. The old ways of sexual segregation are a one-size-fits all set of restrictions that caused a lot of suffering and lost opportunities. These edicts were meant as an early social engineering project to maximize the extractable wealth generated by a given civilization.
The trouble with “Humanity” is that morality and ethics are really only highly developed as THEOREMS by outlier prognosticators (in the form of a Future Utopia), but those mores are not consistently put into practice in the present within our amorphous androgyny. The concept of real fairness escapes too many people. So when “new” powers are seized by previously disenfranchised groups, they behave like greedy monkeys freed from a cage replete with pent-up lusts, rather than comporting themselves with composure and dignity, and most importantly RESTRAINT with respect to their enhanced authority and coupled responsibility.
It is THIS KEY ISSUE, the lack of a consistent moral code that guides the balance between self interest, civic duty, and the built and natural environments from where one’s feet stand upon to out past the horizon, that confronts anyone with any actual power and influence. We as a species keep picking the wrong individuals by the incorrect criteria for leadership. The result is exploitation and corruption rather than the needed spiritual guidance that makes arbitrary and compulsory roles irrelevant.
Imagine finding yourself surrounded by a pair bonded partner, family, friends, associates, colleagues, and even STRANGERS that you could implicitly TRUST because their moral code is SOUND…
“even STRANGERS that you could implicitly TRUST because their moral code is SOUND.” Wallah Habibi, you idealize my life too much. And the Saudis. My AK47 is worth 21 of their moral codes. Besides I shot better at rifles than my lieutenant father at age 10. In the
My main qualm about this article is its based on American gender roles. The whole 60s housewife thing is messed up. Why is no one writing about that. My grandmother, great grandmother, mother, you name it all worked. All in the field farming, except my mother who was educated, but she worked just as hard. Russian and slavic friends, their mothers worked as a teacher/doctor/accountant. Grandmothers worked in factories, great grandmothers worked in factories, great grandmothers worked in the field farming and gave birth to children in the field.
In the rest of the world women work and alongside men and it is no big deal. So, when I went to the US, and saw a whole generation of women becoming housewives because the US was rich enough at the time, it shocked me. I mean, Soviet women dropped off their kid at the daycare of the factory and worked, Arab women carried their children on their back as they farmed. Then suddenly all the oil wealth and you have the first arab housewives because people have money, and sorry some Saudi women are really very spoiled and entitled.
The article has a very American centric lens. There are many articles here about how Slavic women aren’t spoiled, like Moldovans, Russians, etc. That is because there are no housewives. Many who do move to America and marry and become housewives chop off their hair and stop exercising and start behaviors in their country would have been considered disrespectful to their man. Women have to work, so that they know the value of money and how hard it is to earn it. Then they won’t spend your money like water.
Even with men this is the case. How many of us spend our allowance as teens as drunken sailors but the moment we moved out and had our own apartment and had to pay bills, we were a lot more careful with money as we realized how hard it is to earn a stable income? Think of yourself in middle school, before you could work, how careless you were with money? And think when you had to pay your rent? You treat money differently now that you experienced how hard it is to earn it. Imagine a woman who never had that experience. That is called a housewife, an artificial role few women had in the history of humanity until recently.
Where I grew up, I noticed most housewives who were career housewives spend money like water. Women who had worked, and even if they became housewives later, were careful with their husband’s money as they knew it isn’t easy to earn money. You can’t tell someone it isn’t easy to earn money, they can only learn through experience. In my generation, girls who went to university and/or worked actually were careful with money. Straight up housewives destined to be housewives, nope.
The “traditional” sex roles in the US and Saudi of housewives is unique to the 19th and 20th centuries. Pioneer women worked on the homestead. Before only elite, the direct family of the king, could women afford to stay at home, but the majority of women worked. American and Saudi prosperity created a never seen before middle class that was for the first time able to live like aristocrats and for the first time had housewives on such a mass scale. This caused a disruption.
In Egypt, Bedouins who become sedentary begin to develop these problems too. It disrupts natural, normal healthy relationships. In a Bedouin clan, every woman, man, and child had a role and hard work in the functioning of the tribe. Women had more rights because they had more responsibilities. Housewives lost their rights and responsibilities. An ideal Bedouin wife would enrich you, help you gain more resources and respect in the tribe, while the ideal city housewife is more beautiful (has more time to spend on appearance) but would impoverish you, a black hole endless vacuum for your money and has no clue how back breaking the work was to earn it unlike the Bedouin woman.
A growing trend where I live is city men marrying a strong hardworking uneducated young farm woman from their village because she values how hard it is for her husband to earn money even if now, the only think she farms is a strawberry plant in the apartment window. They laugh at the men complaining their urban housewife wife wasted all their paycheck on the latest fashion designer dress and now they have to borrow for groceries (it happens).
I agree that the break in traditional roles leads to problems, but I disagree to where the break occurred. I see the start of the break not with feminism, but with housewives. This is why Russian first wave feminism (moving women from farm to factory) differs from American second wave feminism (moving women from housewives to an office).
A theme that should be explored is the entitlement of women in a housewife society like America or Saudi Arabia (where women were suddenly deprived of responsibilities and rights) and how that lack of responsibility affects gender relations generations later.
In the many millenia men and women existed as hunter gatherers men and women were socially equal, while gatherers provided the majority of the calories while the men primarily rested as your own narrative admits (meat was supplementary and hunting expeditions are not full time) and made most of the early advances in civilized tool making. As the less fit sex in the evolutionary terms of probability of leaving offspring males had to compete with each other in strength as fighters, providers and possessiveness of mates. The environment and ever changing preferences of sexual selection has made that obsolete.
As the gatherers it was women who came upon the discovery of agriculture that made civilization possible in the past 10,000 years, a recent blip in our total existence as a species. The industrial era was no different than any earlier age in that women always had to share the role of worker and provider, with the exception of the upper class. Now that we’re no longer in the age of banging rocks or digging holes in the dirt together it seems that physical strength becomes increasingly irrelevant to economic viability and independence.
The demands of our current capitalist/propertarian society places demands such that very few can hope to provide for their family on a single income. So if men are to have any free time to spend with a family and therefore any logical interest in having one besides genetic legacy (and with a population of 7 billion even that notion is outdated), they will have to accept their mates being co-earners, or in other words accept that at least in some ways things are the same as they always were. And one cannot demand equal contribution from someone while placing them as inferior and subordinate.