patrick.net

“That was not consensual!”
More glorious snark from the Bee

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-feminist-tickle-me-elmo-doll-just-says-that-was-not-consensual

https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/

Mary Harrington

Last week, World War 3 nearly started in Ladakh. A dry, high-altitude region of Indian Kashmir on the Himalayan border with China, it’s been the site of escalating tensions and military buildup for some time. On June 15, the first physical confrontation between the Indian and Chinese militaries for 45 years erupted, killing at least 20 Indian and 45 Chinese soldiers.

There are all sorts of geopolitical reasons cited for the escalating tension between the world’s two most populous countries, but there is one more central and timeless problem that is going to drive both countries towards violence and instability — women. Or a lack of them.

In his History of the Normans, written circa 1015, Dudo of St Quentin argued that the reason the Vikings went raiding was because they couldn’t find wives, an idea echoed by the Tudor antiquarian William Camden in his 1610 book Britannia. ‘Wikings’, Camden suggested, were what you got when there weren’t enough women to go round, resulting in an excess of young men hanging around full of machismo but without any prospect of finding a nice girl and settling down. (Viking literally means raider.)

So, whenever these spare males “multiply’d themselves to a burdensom community”, Camden reports that an area would draw lots. Those of the young troublemakers chosen in the lottery would be sent off on a ship to make a nuisance of themselves overseas. Which they did.

Patrick points out that polygamy was also the central reason that Islam expanded rapidly. As richer Muslims all took four wives for themselves, the majority of young men were left without any women. To defuse the situation in Arabia, those men were told that they had the Allah-given right to raid neighboring non-Muslim area, set themselves up as master, and take as many women as they wanted from among those who refused to convert.

One 2019 study showed that where polygyny — that is, multiple wives — is a social norm for higher-status men, attacks on neighbouring ethnic groups skyrocket. With a few men monopolising eligible women, the rest are forced to seek status and resources by attacking other tribes. ...

Females in sexually dimorphic species don’t choose mates at random but select for traits that will give their offspring an advantage of some kind. ... Humans, being evolved creatures, do this too: ‘hypergamy’, or more colloquially ‘marrying up’, in practice means that the wealthier a man is, more women will consider him a desirable partner. ...

Chinese history suggests that bachelors with no prospect of marriage are associated with banditry, violence and even civil war. The Nien rebellion of 1863 was driven by ‘bare branches’, as men with no prospect of marriage are called in China. ...

Historically a common solution to the problem of ‘bare branches’ has been to divert them from domestic trouble-making to foreign expansionist warfare. The Viking raids on Britain were one result of this...

Tempting though it may be to imagine that in the West progressive values have somehow abolished our evolved tendencies to intrasexual and inter-sexual competition for the best mates, evidence suggests otherwise. ...

Although the sex ratio in the liberated West is the normal 105:100, today this isn’t translating straightforwardly into family formation. As women have become more educated and economically independent, researchers hoped hypergamy would fade away, with women becoming more willing to ‘marry down’. It would make sense: after all, a woman doing well in a demanding career might in theory have an easier life if she married a self-employed plasterer whose flexible schedule would let him deal with school runs and appointments.

But after hundreds of thousands of years of evolving to prioritise mates with resources and status, it seems that many women still prefer to seek the ‘best’ potential partner. One recent US study showed that even where women are more educated than their partners, they’ll still show a preference for men who earn more than them. That is, high-flying women will disregard the plasterer and pursue an equally high-earning husband. ...

social norms in favour of monogamous marriage have loosened over the decades since the 1960s — but this hasn’t made women less choosy about their partners. The number of American men under 30 who have never had sex tripled between 2008 and 2018 — but hasn’t risen nearly as rapidly for women. The only plausible explanation is that women are still having sex, but they’re competing for a smaller pool of desirable men and leaving the rest on the shelf.

You only have to look at online dating advice for American men to see this at work: “Show her you aren’t the average video game playing, cheap beer drinking, couch potato loser she wants to avoid,” advises one article on cultivating the ‘Alpha male persona’.

So even with normal sex ratios, our culture is creating a sort of flotsam of sexual no-hopers, composed of those males who simply aren’t impressive enough to attract anyone even for a fling, let alone a committed relationship. The grievances of this sexual underclass are creeping into our politics...

“Sexual patterns that have emerged because of the decline of monogamy have seen a greater level of sexual choice for an elite of men and a growing celibacy among a large male population at the bottom of the pecking order. ...

Bare branches also make for enthusiastic terrorists. ISIS used sexual slavery as a key plank in its recruiting pitch for foreign fighters. Like the ‘Wikings’, men who don’t have many prospects at home will take considerable risks if they think it’ll get them laid...

Conversely, settling down de-radicalises: according to research by the Institute of Family Studies, people with children are less likely to express views consistent with white identity politics. Likewise the Saudi Arabian deradicalisation programme essentially involved getting extremists married, and has proved very effective.

It’s difficult to tackle this subject without yourself getting accused of being ‘redpilled’ or a men’s rights activist.

Funny to see a woman writer conclude that The Red Pill is true. Or maybe not so funny, since the evidence is obvious and overwhelming.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/as-birth-rates-fall-animals-prowl-in-our-abandoned-ghost-villages

For many years it seemed that overpopulation was the looming crisis of our age. Back in 1968, the Stanford biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich infamously predicted that millions would soon starve to death in their bestselling, doom-saying book The Population Bomb; since then, neo-Malthusian rumblings of imminent disaster have been a continual refrain in certain sections of the environmental movement – fears that were recently given voice on David Attenborough’s documentary Life on our Planet.

At the time the Ehrlichs were publishing their dark prophecies, the world was at its peak of population growth, which at that point was increasing at a rate of 2.1% a year. Since then, the global population has ballooned from 3.5 billion to 7.67 billion.

But growth has slowed – and considerably. As women’s empowerment advances, and access to contraception improves, birthrates around the world are stuttering and stalling, and in many countries now there are fewer than 2.1 children per woman – the minimum level required to maintain a stable population. ...

Increasingly this is also the case in middle-income countries too, including Thailand and Brazil. In Iran, a birthrate of 1.7 children per woman has alarmed the government; it recently announced that state clinics would no longer hand out contraceptives or offer vasectomies.

Thanks to this worldwide pattern of falling fertility levels, the UN now believes that we will see an end to population growth within decades – before the slide begins in earnest.

Change my mind.

All boys about the age of 7 or 8 learned that girls have cooties, and girls have harbored resentment about it ever since.

"Somebody to live with me, raise my kids, pay half the rent, do household chores, but no sex."

Basically, going willingly into Lesbian Bed Death (most of these are two women)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/platonic-life-partnership-couples-breaking-120611549.html

https://www.houseofwellness.com.au/wellbeing/relationships/platonic-life-partners

https://www.yahoo.com/news/platonic-life-partnership-couples-breaking-120611549.html

https://notthebee.com/article/must-watch-video-feminism-diminishes-the-glory-of-motherhood

This video from Pastor Michael Foster is the straight truth about toxic feminism.

A subthread of https://patrick.net/post/1337925/2021-01-30-also-the-left-the-great-hypocrisy

There’s an intriguing argument being made about the COVID pandemic response, and it’s coming from a rather unexpected source—a woman. She suggests, in about one minute, that the entire reaction to the virus was driven by a distinctly female worldview. Honestly, this is the spiciest and best take we’ve ever seen, and it’s a perspective worth exploring, especially when we consider how the response played out: an emotional, hysterical overreaction, completely lacking any rational long-term thinking, fueled by fear, manipulation, and a “mean girl” mentality that pressured everyone to fall in line or else.

Think about it. Instead of a measured, data-driven approach, we saw a wave of panic wash over the entire globe, pushing us into lockdowns, school closures, and economic chaos—all based on worst-case scenarios and the inability to see beyond the immediate threat. Sadly, this is the very essence of the female reaction: focusing on the here and now without pausing to consider the bigger ramifications. It’s like the entire world was thrown into the arms of a frantic, overly protective helicopter mother who was desperate to shield her children from danger and ended up causing more harm than good.

RELATED: Shocking new study on hydroxychloroquine proves once and for all Trump was right…
https://revolver.news/2024/09/spiciest-one-minute-take-on-entire-covid-sham-all-about-hysterical-female-energy/

Booger says

Yep. If you’re well enough off that you don’t need a wife to work and afford all the things she wants, better get a prenup. For everyone else tradition is necessarily dead imo

Glock-n-Load says

Booger says

Yep. If you’re well enough off that you don’t need a wife to work and afford all the things she wants, better get a prenup. For everyone else tradition is necessarily dead imo

Many men stay ambitous and reach their earnings zenith later in life while womyn often slow down and slob and which makes this difficult as assets acquired during the marriage are still split. You'd have to either specify dollar amounts and/or explicitly state everything excluded in case of divorce. And then they'll find a judge to toss it ;)

Patrick says

Let me guess... mom was on vacation

mell says

Yep. If you’re well enough off that you don’t need a wife to work and afford all the things she wants, better get a prenup. For everyone else tradition is necessarily dead imo

Prenup just means the lawyers will litigate the divorce AND the prenup until the marital estate winds up mostly in their fee bucket as usual usual. Prenup is just a contract, and endless battles over contracts are just as possible as endless battles over divorce.

I read something that lawyers consider themselves rightfully entitled to at least 40 percent of any estate if they become involved. They will keep the paper churning and the parties adversarial until they have achieved that goal.

It’s a crapshoot. Make your wife your best friend. If you don’t think you’re her best friend, take measures.

Ceffer says

mell says

Yep. If you’re well enough off that you don’t need a wife to work and afford all the things she wants, better get a prenup.
For everyone else tradition is necessarily dead imo

Prenup just means the lawyers will litigate the divorce AND the prenup until the marital estate winds up mostly in their fee bucket as usual usual. Prenup is just a contract, and endless battles over contracts are just as possible as endless battles over divorce.

I read something that lawyers consider themselves rightfully entitled to at least 40 percent of any estate if they become involved. They will keep the paper churning and the parties adversarial until they have achieved that goal.

There are very few people who pay very expensive lawyers to draw close to iron clad prenups, but they must be delivered well ahead of time of the marriage etc. Most prenups don't hold.

Glock-n-Load says

It’s a crapshoot. Make your wife your best friend. If you don’t think your her best friend, take measures.

Or find someone loyal and/or religious enough to stay through thick and thin even when you're not best friends. There is no doubt that with the advent of vaginamony and child suppport the natural solipsists became far less stable and reliable and cut their work in half or less ;)

You got the wrong "ism" it was Globalism and Communism.
Feminist couldn't get two cats to keep a clean litter box.

Kill communism and most "isms" will disappear. But don't ever diminish its impact by throwing around social constructs, it's how they hide in the shadows.

Booger says

No doubt

mell says

Booger says

No doubt

More properly, "Marriage is the main way for women to appropriate the financial resources of otherwise successful men."

Sheee-it!

The dude starts early on this one:

https://www.newspressnow.com/stacker-science/2025/09/18/mind-the-gap-women-spend-over-50-more-than-men-on-mental-health-prescriptions/

https://www.instagram.com/share/reel/BAPMobchBg

Happy Columbus Day!

Liberated the indigenous people from a cycle of human sacrifice and poverty!

https://newrightpoast.substack.com/p/238-young-hitlerians

Helen Andrews elaborates on her theory previously communicated in her NatCon speech, which states that institutional feminization is the primary driver of woke. It’s being critiqued as light on data. Here’s hoping she gets the book deal that will beef up an argument that’s already persuasive to any guy who’s worked for a big company in the last decade.

"Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?"

https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/

In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.

Patrick says

https://newrightpoast.substack.com/p/238-young-hitlerians

Helen Andrews elaborates on her theory previously communicated in her NatCon speech, which states that institutional feminization is the primary driver of woke. It’s being critiqued as light on data. Here’s hoping she gets the book deal that will beef up an argument that’s already persuasive to any guy who’s worked for a big company in the last decade.

"Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?"

To be fair, Summers was an arrogant asshole - while he was in government he ran Brooksley Born out on a rail when she had the temerity to suggest that credit default swaps needed to be regulated. Then, sure enough during the housing meltdown, what was the catalyst? Credit default swaps.

Fuck Summers. If anything, his punishment was too light.

https://x.com/cleobug101/status/1979976352087384339

children and a husband are the only antidote to a life spent obsessing over social currency and beauty in relation to others and men. the substance is a prime example of that. you get MAYBE 30 years of brunches and hot girl summers before the reality of the cruelness of life sets in, social currency slips away, and younger women steal the attention and freebies, children and a husband give you a purpose outside of yourself and hedonistic pursuits. like they say, if you don't use your eggs, they scramble.

Yes, but she should have said "a husband and children", in that order.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/failed-ai-startup-access-to-mansion-and-what-googles-former-ceo-eric-schmidt-and-his-31-year-old-ex-girl-friend-are-fighting-in-court-for/articleshow/124716307.cms

AI startup with a “girlfriend”. What can go wrong😜

Lol, Schmidt was famous for taking advantage of his wealth to sleep with lots of women.

Now he's getting taken advantage of.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9782631/Eric-Schmidt-66-dating-27-year-old-entrepreneur-Michelle-Ritter-open-marriage-wife-Wendy.html

Somehow billionaires are not getting the best cuts of meat.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity