Cultural Suicide?

It's unreported because the MSM are the willing accomplices of the leftist hand wringers who perpetuate the myth of male "wrongness". I can barely think of a handful of conservative or libertarian old fashioned, manly men. There are none whatsoever on the other side, and fewer still in the MSM.

Name one Dad on TV that's not a moron. Name one adult male under the age of 45 who hasn't turned over his spine and testicles to mothers, wives or daughters in his life. If you know many, you're doing better than me.
Name 5 men your sons can look up to. Hard, isn't it.

I'm not one of those people who believe that sports stars or actors should be role models. That's the MSM's idea. But I don't think our sons, or daughters either, should see them lie. cheat, steal, rape, murder, drink, drug and generally live like they are above the law, and still get to keep their jobs. But those are the stories boys and young men see daily.

The good guys don't get press.

Oh, wait, I've come full circle.

I don't think it's cultural suicide so much as it points to a rebirth of the alpha male chimp culture, in which pair-bonding (e.g. marriage) is weak and temporary, and you see larger disparities between the number of children of alpha and non-alpha males.

Whatever the social norms, and whether or not she prefers in a general way that the males around her to act as harmless eunuchs, when it comes to bearing children a woman is still interested in doing so by the man who has not castrated himself, who is still armed, aggressive, and dangerous to her enemies. Not much has changed there in 50,000 years, nor ever will, inasmuch as these preferences are hard-wired into the DNA.

So if the dominant paradigm for males becomes one of self-castration, that just means that men who are less resistant to social paradigms are headed for beta status and a minimum of children. Those who defy the social conventions and act alpha -- and clearly that is a smaller and smaller percentage of men as the conventions grow stronger -- will end up doing more of the breeding.

Carl,
you must live in an area with higher density of manly men than I, or better still, you have more contact with them. I just don't see this anywhere, anymore.

I know of a number of young women, raised in what I consider old fashioned, family oriented, parents still married homes. Yet, they married, ruled the roost, allowing no compromise, no guns, no knives, no contact sports or competitive sports for the sons, taught the sons that the girls were supposed to be first in everything and that they were supposed do as they were told, etc.

In one, the daughters played competitive soccer, the son was in non-competitive baseball. She decided they need to move closer to her family (she couldn't get along with his) and he took a 50% pay cut, but she kept spending at the old money rates. Divorced after 9 years, bankruptcy included, she got the house somehow, she says it's ALL his fault.

In another, the girl married a dyed in the wool, guitar strumming, deer hunting, pick-up driving, red-neck. She herself hunted as a teen-ager. And again, the guns and knives had to go, the truck had to go, the guitar could only be played at church, she stayed home with the kids, she kept her sports car, he drove the mini-van they HAD to have for the kids. But what good did it do her, when he had it at work? Divorced after 7 years, she kept both vehicles, and again she says it's ALL his fault.

Whether the castration is self-inflicted or is being taught is irrelevant . Once they are gone, they are gone for good. Young men are taught to dumb down, be subservient to women, and to NOT be men. Young women are taught that because great-great-grandma didn't have the vote, because grandma was "just" supposed to be a wife and mother, because mom had to fight for equal pay, that somehow, they are owed that intangible something that her female line didn't have.

Evidently, that intangible is her husband's or boyfriend's nuts in a jar, in a drawer, between her panties and her bras. Preserved testicles in a jar are the reparation payment for those dead women's pain I guess.

It makes me want to vomit.

And before someone thinks, "...this guys been burned by screwy women, he's been divorced twice and payed a ton of child support...", not so. Neither do I or my wife come from broken homes. Our parents stayed married until deaths dissolved those marriages. Over 50 years in both cases. I've been married to my jr high school, then, high school sweet heart for 34 1/2 years. We got married as teenagers and had a child almost immediately. It has not been easy, but nothing worthwhile is.

We don't rule each other, we don't push our views on each other. But as the head of the household, I had the final say so. As with anyone else, my decisions weren't always right, and we paid the consequences. When I became disabled and my wife lost her job and our income went from just over $100K, to ZERO in 8 months, we relied on each other and we stayed together. When we lost everything we owned through bankruptcy, we relied on each other and we stayed together. Not because we had nowhere else to go, but because we had a system for working together, of supporting each other and we have a mindset of US, WE, OUR, not I, I, I, me, me, me.

People split up over a flat tire now. And I'm convinced a great deal of it is just selfishness. Women are being taught to be selfish and men are trying to regain that which they have lost, balls.

I certainly think the case of this gentlemen not helping this child was tragic indeed. It is certainly an irony that progressive liberals, who all want us to live in great big cities as one happy cooperative also idealize people in such a way as to ultimately undermine the aspects of social contract.

Morality exists as a set of rules that logical people follow for their own mutual benefit. If everyone else follows these same rules then ultimately it is to our own personal advantage since living in a morally superior society provides us with the best chance to live as well as possible. People generally weigh things as good or bad as it applies to things we like or dislike, or view as beneficial or harmful. In this case, this gentlemen didn't help the child because he placed a lot of weight on the negatives when it came to possible confrontation by his peers and the police. No doubt he understood the benefit to society and to himself to help the child; however, it wasn't enough to outweigh the negatives in his mind at that moment. Ethical dilemmas do not always have objective truths behind them and therefore people generally boil things down to common sense solutions at some point. The gentlemen probably didn't have a lot of time to weigh his decisions so his ethical analysis probably went through just a couple iterations. The fact that agendas have been pushed to the point where all men are viewed as child predators it did not help in his analysis to add a lot of weight to the negative side of assisting children in need. If people cannot follow their naturally altruistic desire to help defenseless children then society at large losses.

*deletes long rant*

Let sick cultures die, it's a self-correcting problem.