F. Roger Devlin’s, “Sexual Utopia in Power” is a collection of essays on gender dynamics, which were written about the same time as the nascency of the manosphere. Topics discussed include his perspective on the (objectively disastrous) Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s, light commentary on race and the future of Western society, economics, the family unit, traditional gender roles, and feminist viewpoints. The title of the book comes from another book , “Utopia in Power“, which is a history of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union. The title is in reference to the 1960’s Sexual Revolution, which is the primary focus of the book. Throughout the book, Devlin heaps derision upon the movement as an unequivocal failure at achieving the promised utopia.
However to quote Devlin, while it hasn’t achieved a utopia, “it has achieved something.” What has occurred is a complete redistribution of sex from a uniform distribution amongst all males to a small number of exceptionally attractive males. Marriage has been trashed by feminist reforms, making the institution unrecognizably scarred from even a generation ago. Marriage is being delayed well into the late 20’s (and those figures are the median; by definition, 50% of people are getting married even later than that). A massive, wholly unnecessary police-state has emerged to manage the relationships and children of divorced and never-married couples. And perhaps worst of all for the West, children are simply not being born.
One cannot help but laugh at how the West has become the most sex-drenched society in history, and yet white birthrates across the West are in decline. The people that conquered the world have begun a long retreat into navel-gazing, and are being displaced in their own ancestral homelands by the Third World. It sounds unbelievable, but it has happened before to other empires in world history. The Mongols once ruled nearly the entirety of Asia; now they have retreated to their small corner, sandwiched between two far mightier neighbors of Russia and China. The British Empire used to bathe in eternal sun; now white British girls are sexually groomed by Pakistani crime gangs on British soil. Sex has become a pastime, rather than the means of procreation and maintenance of a civilization. Later in the book, Devlin uses Jack Donovan‘s analogy of modeling human sexual relations as a pack of bonobo apes. As sad as it is to say, matriarchy has displaced patriarchy in the West, with disastrous results.
The former glory of the Mongol Empire.
The former glory of the British Empire.
While Devlin enjoys goring feminists, he also relishes in doing so to braindead conservatives. Traditionalist conservatives – known in manosphere circles as “tradcons”, are dinosaurs from a bygone age, who were raised to treat women as the weaker sex, and defend them from aggressors (especially other males). These men are often impelled by old-time religious instruction in regard to how wives and women are to be treated. There is much truth in Devlin’s observation that men suffer from the “crabs in a bucket” mentality when it comes to uniting against feminists. As he states, it is difficult to get people to rail against women and children, but it is a snap to get men to condemn other men. As Devlin covers in the book, these men are quick to condemn their fellow men for the decline of marriage, the decline of the family unit, high divorce rates, and rising unwed births. This of course, ignores the fact that it is women that get to choose their men – not the other way around. Women are the gatekeepers of sex and reproduction. Divorce is initiated by women at least 75% of the time; this statistic ignores cases where men were cajoled into filing for divorce by their wives. While believing themselves to be “conservative”, such men are actually useful idiots for the feminist camp. “Conservative” commentators on gender relations are at least 50 years behind the times, and are utterly clueless as to why young men are avoiding marriage like the plague, rejecting higher education, avoiding vocational training, and instead focusing on video games and pornography.
Clueless “conservatives” are not the only useful idiots in the feminist camp. Some men demean themselves to the point of publicly declaring themselves to be feminists, perhaps in the (false) hope that this will increase their prospects for sex. This behavior reminds me of the Wesley Snipes’ “Blade” films, where human “familiars” will become the slaves of vampires and run interference for them in the hope that they will eventually be elevated to vampire status. Those that find this behavior unbelievable can educate themselves with a quick YouTube search for “male feminists” (see this trainwreck here, and get the barf-bag for this one).
Joss Whedon, a mangina in the wild.
When the Sexual Revolution first came about, men were its primary movers. The thinking was that marriage and Christian Western ethics were stifling the sexual energy of men and women, and that if we could only break our Puritan shackles, every man would have a sultan’s harem. Devlin argues that this aspect of the Revolution has succeeded – for some. The total supply of sex available to men has not increased since the 1960’s, but its distribution has vastly changed. Instead of one man being sexually paired with one woman, we now have the vast majority of women having fleeting sexual relationships in their nubile years with a small minority of exceptional men – alpha males. Figures vary depending on which manosphere blog you read, but many commentators posit the “80-20 rule”, that 80% of the women are having sex with only 20% of the men. “Exceptional” is a subjective term, but can safely include men that are exceptionally rich, handsome, or possess exceptionally high social status (e.g. a congressman or CEO).
Devlin’s book is a essentially a description of what the revolution was, how it has failed, how it is harmful, and what needs to be done to save our civilization from the ravages of feminism. Upon reading this book, I can only conclude though that feminists are not the real problem. Every age is beset by idiots and cranks that babble about their grievances against the society they (by luck) happened to be born into. The danger is not their babbling – it is that other people follow them. Hitler was a lunatic, but people followed him. Lenin was a murderous criminal, but people followed him. Feminists are crazy – but people follow them. And the big problem in our society is white knights in high positions of power that work as their puppets.
The Revolution and the Feminist Police-State
As I have written before in prior blog posts, revolutionaries are not reliable sources when forming political or historical opinions. Feminists and lefties routinely characterize 1950’s America as a quasi-Taliban society, where women were oppressed and clergymen taught they had no souls. The crimes of the previous regime and the blessings of the new regime are always both greatly exaggerated. Devlin routinely references the French Revolution in the book, so reading a few Wikipedia articles on the subject beforehand might be a good idea (and the Russian Revolution while you’re at it). To give a brief overview of the revolutions, as Devlin discusses related to the Sexual Revolution, they paralleled three phases:
A euphoric phase, where spirits are extremely high, and the fetters of the old order have been cast off. The reforms of the Revolution are initially beneficial, and it appears the promised utopia is nigh upon all.
The reforms however, end up not working as promised. The reforms contradict human nature, and become widely ignored or flouted. A radical faction takes power (e.g. the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks), and imposes a Reign of Terror to salvage the Revolution using State power. “Wreckers” are scapegoated as standing in the way of realizing the utopia (or in contemporary America, “white racists”, “homophobes”, and “misogynists.”)
Eventually, as Devlin puts it, “human nature gradually reasserts itself.”
We are currently in phase two: The Reign of Terror. Devlin is routinely sniped by his critics as a “white nationalist” or a “Nazi”, but the family court machinery in this country demanded by the feminists is beyond the wiles of a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Furthermore, the feminist police-state that has been erected in this country since the 1960’s is far more crippling and oppressive than anything the Taliban, Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s Russia ever cooked up. He discusses in brutal detail the “burgeoning feminist police state.” Christians are humorously criticized at wanting to police the private lives of homosexuals using the sodomy laws. Indeed, skeptics at the outset of the Sexual Revolution were accused of wanting to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” Yet, the radical feminist (lesbian) left has actually succeeded at erecting a monstrous police-state apparatus to monitor the relationships, sexual habits, and offspring of straight couples. Despite their claims of “oppression by the patriarchy”, feminists have been massively successful at co-opting State power to implement their schemes. Not only does the police state intrude upon the family unit, but it also seeks domination over the private romantic lives of men and women.
Devlin writes at length on the subject of “sexual harassment,” a vague non-crime over which careers can be ruined on a woman’s say-so. Hell, at my job I had to take a sexual harassment training course, where it was repeatedly stated to me that the woman’s “feelings” or “her perception” of my words were what determined whether there was harassment or not. Guilt is presumed. They even made it clear that men had no 5th Amendment protections, since this is a private company (a private tyranny), and therefore they could do as they wished. Theoretically, saying “hello” to a woman in the hallway could get me fired from my job if the woman somehow took offense at the word, or (in her mind) interpreted my salutation as a sexual come-on. Bearing that in mind, why would any man want to have any contact whatsoever with a woman in his workplace, when it can only lead to trouble?
Sexual harassment, as Devlin states, has become a national industry, aimed at making lawyers and consultants rich. Such laws are not directed at high-status, high-value alpha males – they are meant to target lower-value men who’s attentions displease women who think they are entitled to higher-quality men. Sexual harassment and date rape laws are part of a wider campaign at criminalizing normal male behavior. “Date rape” has never been a serious problem in this country (or any civilization), but instead is a bugaboo cooked up a bunch of lesbian academics in the 1970’s. Men are driven to go out into the world and seek sex from females. This is how we are programmed. And to man-hating lesbian feminists, this is intolerable.
One of the strongest weapons in the feminist arsenal is the politicization and redefinition of the crime of “rape”, a crime which used to be straightforwardly defined. Rape used to mean forcible sexual intercourse against one’s will. Nowadays however, feminists have sought to expand the definition of rape to include sex which was initially consensual, but the woman regrets after the fact. In the kookier quarters of lesbian academia, even a wife having consensual sex with her lawfully wedded husband is somehow being “raped.” Feminists often cry that rape is not taken seriously enough; Devlin rightly asks how anyone could take rape seriously when defined as feminists define it.
“Sexual assault” is yet another concoction of the feminists. It is an artful phrase that most people presume is synonymous with “rape.” Feminists, however, have funny ideas of what constitutes rape to begin with, and they have even funnier ideas of what constitutes “sexual assault.” What does it mean? I admit, I always used to think it meant “rape.” But nowadays, “sexual assault” can encompass pretty much any interaction between a male and female which the female disapproves of, at some point during or after the interaction. “Date rape” ,”sexual harassment”, and “sexual assault” are vague by design. The drive to regulate heterosexual sex (again, by angry lesbians) has reached a nadir with the introduction of “Yes means Yes” laws. Unless explicit permission is obtained, rape is assumed. Who is putting the policeman in who’s bedroom?
“Rape shield laws” are another Stalinist achievement of the Revolution. The insanity around rape shield laws has reached such a crescendo, that feminists groups have now even begun lobbying for the power to bring false rape charges against men on behalf of the victims. Should this happen, a super-Stalinist state will emerge, where imaginary victims can be conjured up, the men arrested can be tried on secret evidence in closed courts, and forbidden to confront the witnesses against them. No actual victims or evidence are necessary. At least the Communists bothered to fabricate evidence and testimony at their show trials.
The control over property is another aspect of the feminist police-state. Devlin correctly points out that the producers of wealth have a far better understanding of its worth (and how it ought to be spent) than those who consume wealth. It is far preferable for men (who produce most wealth) to have control over their property and money than for women to control it. However, feminists (and self-serving bureaucrats) have other plans. Laws have been proposed to give women direct control over their husbands’ earnings, with penalties for men who refuse to pay. Furthermore, divorce has become a massive wealth transfer from men to women in the West.
Some of the pressure tactics by feminists are downright comical. Devlin cites a poll given to a sample of young career women, who overwhelmingly reported believing that they could postpone childbirth into their 40’s. In response to the poll results, the medical community began a PR blitz to snap women out of this daydream, but folded up due to feminist pressure. Nothing fills the feminist ranks like bitter, lonely, distraught women. Happily married mothers don’t make for good ideological cannon fodder.
Even foreign escape may one day become impossible. As Devlin mentions, at least one bill has passed Congress (a conclave of manginas if there ever was one) to regulate the acquisition of foreign wives. Of course, the bill was passed (as all tyrannical measures are) in the name of “safety” and “protection.” What is being “protected” is not Asian and Eastern European women from exploitation, but native women from foreign competition. The noose grows ever tighter. It is important to remember though, that it is not feminists that are enacting these police state laws and attacking men. The people actually passing, enforcing, and interpreting these laws are disproportionately men – white knights and manginas, but still men.
The Prospect of Violent Revolution
It is unlikely that chivalry (to the extent it is still practiced) will survive much longer in the modern age. Since the USA is not really a republic anymore, and is in truth ruled by polite totalitarianism, the state will swoop in to rescue women. Devlin claims that male’s cannot be expected to restrain themselves from violence against women in the teeth of repeated feminist attacks on male masculinity, or even direct acts of violence by women against men. This is likely true, but feminists have shown that they can successfully appeal to the State to do their bidding. Should men in large numbers begin using physical violence against feminists and women to knock them back in line, I fear the country would be plunged into a feminist-Taliban society, where the full might of the technocratic police-state would be used to monitor and control the behavior of men and boys from cradle to grave. The Constitution would no longer apply to men (to the extent it meekly does now). Communications and whereabouts would be monitored and logged at all times. Close friendships and associations would be tracked. Public gatherings of more than 3 men in a location would be banned. And it will be other men that pass these laws and enforce them.
Men are significantly simpler creatures than women in many regards. Men know what they want; women don’t. Give a man good food, good sex, and eight hours of sleep, and it is unlikely he will ever need antidepressants. Women however, follow a far more complicated pattern: they want what other women want. This goes for material possessions, and especially for men. Male sexual conquest tends to follow a positive feedback mechanism: the more women a man sleeps with, the more other women want to sleep with him, since its obvious that other women want him.
As is explained in the book, men are polygamous, while women are hypergamous. Polygamy is probably already known to the reader; it is when a man takes multiple lovers or wives. Hypergamy however, is a term I only learned from reading the manosphere (and as I have discovered, is a term despised by feminists). Hypergamy is the act of always mating “up”, in terms of some measurement criteria. Women always want to mate with the biggest, baddest alpha male on the block – and have him all to herself.
The institution of marriage in ages past, served to keep these two destructive urges in check; the male polygamous impulse would be directed to his wife, and the wife’s hypergamous impulse would be directed to her husband. In this way of channeling sexual energy to productive purposes, civilization was able to break out, like roses on a vine.
Sexual Utopia from the Male and Female Perspective
What is a “utopia” anyways? The word is the name for a “perfect society.” What that is, depends on who you ask – theologians have explored the question, as well as political radicals. The Wikipedia article on utopias discusses various attempted implementations at length. It is no coincidence that the Greek roots of the word “utopia” means “no place.”
So what is a “sexual utopia”? As implicitly defined by the Sexual Revolutionaries (and their contemporary Red Guards), it is the freedom to have sex freely with anyone you choose, and not have to face any sort of consequences for the behavior. This of course, is unattainable in practice, mainly because males and females have far different ideas over what constitutes a sexual utopia.
For males, as Devlin points out, a male sexual utopia is a James Bond film: you walk into a room, and beautiful women freely offer their bodies to you, without any investment or effort, and no demands of commitment. This might be described as a quasi-polygamous society (I say “quasi” because actual marriage is unnecessary in this arrangement). This arrangement is of course, untenable for multiple reasons:
As we know from reality, even the highest-status men (e.g. the President) cannot simply walk into a room and make any woman swoon over him.
It is mathematically impossible for each man to have a large harem, as there are not enough women to go around.
The resulting society is unlikely to be stable, as males that cannot get access to sex form a large destabilizing force. Devlin mentions that polygamous societies tend to be impoverished, and unsexed males tend to form criminal gangs to occupy themselves. This is a natural reaction to polygamy, as marginalized males realize eventually their only way of mating with a female and passing along their genes is to form cooperative gangs and seize females by force.
A female sexual utopia is far different. As I have already discussed, women are naturally hypergamous; they always want to mate “up.” In a female sexual utopia, every woman will be able to mate with the highest-status man in the group (the alpha male), and the alpha male will give himself exclusively to one woman. This statement I just wrote is of course, utterly paradoxical for multiple reasons:
How can any woman, regardless of worth, have a shot at the alpha male?
Even if the alpha male had limitless sexual stamina, time constraints would make it impossible for him to mate with every female with any significant frequency.
And if he is mating with every female – how can any of the women demand that he be exclusive to her? If he DID commit to a single woman, he would automatically lose his alpha status; he is an alpha precisely because he has so many options available.
From the standpoint of his own self-interest, why would he ever commit to a single female when hordes of other beautiful women want him?
And how long would such a society be sustainable, when > 99.9% of males have no sexual release? The likely event is that the society would collapse into Hobbesian violence, as alpha male after alpha male is assassinated so another can take the throne.
It is important to understand that the sexual utopia that is attempting to be erected in America is the female version. Women overwhelmingly initiate divorce, upwards of 75% of the time. Women are constantly told by the media that if they leave their husbands, they’ll not only have their husband’s money, but a superior man awaits them anyways. This of course, is false, since most men have no interested in raising and paying for another man’s children. As one man is quoted as stating in the book, “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” The Sexual Revolution promised a Sexual Utopia; instead it has produced a Sexual Dystopia.
Marriage is the healthiest, most sensible “middle ground” we can hope for in regards to both of these unattainable sexual utopias. In marriage, men and women are able to get most of the sexual satisfaction they would get in the utopian limit. The man typically desires more sex than his wife wants to provide, and the wife typically wants to provide less than she does to keep her husband happy.
Male and Female Drawbacks to Marriage
As Devlin discusses in the book, marriage confers a set of benefits and drawbacks to both the man the woman who enter into the contract. Let us enumerate the many drawbacks for the male when entering into a marriage:
A bachelor can freely have sex with as many women as he is capable of persuading into bed. A husband is stuck with his bride, warts and all.
Marriage entails a massive opportunity cost. A bachelor enjoys 100% of his post-tax economic productivity going to himself. By being single and investing heavily, the bachelor can afford much more property than the married male, or retire early with a rock-solid portfolio. The married male however, must divert huge amounts of income to feeding and caring for his wife and children. He will likely need to work even in to old age until he can retire.
The bachelor enjoys as significantly less-stressful life, as there are no children interfering in his personal leisure time.
Equally, a female loses out when she gets married as well:
The female can no longer satisfy her natural hypergamous urges. She is stuck with her husband… warts and all.
The woman is saddled with (at least) 18 years of toil whenever she gives birth to her husband’s children.
Without a husband or children, there is less housework to do. She has more free time for herself.
She can freely cook just for herself, rather than making what her husband or the children like.
She can pursue a career, and live a life of pleasure and decadence bouncing from bed to bed.
The Benefits of Classical Marriage
In light of the drawbacks discussed, why would anyone have ever gotten married in ages past?In the best case scenario, marriage is a step backwards for men (and a giant leap forward for women), since the man is restricted to having sex with only one woman, while the woman commandeers the economic productivity of a single man. If sex was the only reason to get married, to quote Devlin, “renting beats owning.” Marriage is simply too high a price to pay for sex compared to prostitution and sex tourism. Weddings can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and a wedding ring costs 2-3 month’s salary. Wives and children gobble up money like candy. As difficult as it is for us contemporary, post-1960’s neophytes to understand, classical marriage used to provide substantial benefits:
The husband gained a loving, supportive helpmate that could run his household for him while he focused his productive energies on earning income for his wife and children.
The husband no longer needed to hunt for a woman to have sex with; his wife could provide him with all of the sack time he wanted (within reason).
The husband gained reasonable assurance that the children his bride produced actually belonged to him.
The man obtained a loving mother for his children, who devoted her energies to intensive parenting.
There used to be social status awarded to men who held down jobs, had wives, and supported families.
The benefits to the women were equally strong:
She obtained economic support for herself in running a household and raising her children. Prior to the rise of the welfare state, economic ruin and poverty was the likely outcome for a woman who gave birth out of wedlock.
Her children had a male role model and leader to look up to. Little boys could grow up wanting to emulate their father. Little girls would grow up wanting a husband of her own that reminded her of daddy.
She had a partner for life, instead of becoming a depressed old spinster clipping cat foods coupons from the Sunday paper. The alternative to marriage was a life of lonely bitterness.
Again, social status was awarded to women who fulfilled their role as wives and mothers.
To summarize, in pre-1960’s Western society, marriage was an excellent arrangement for both sexes. The primary purpose of marriage is not simply to have sex – it is to provide a stable home environment for the rearing of children. It is not men who benefit primarily from marriage – it is women and children. Women, in exchange for love, support, sex, and motherhood, are supported for life by their husbands. Children are loved and reared by their mother and father, and financially supported by their father. While there were drawbacks to both entrants into the contract, the net benefit to them and to society was a positive. Men lost their ability to have sex with other women, but instead gained a helpmate and a mother for their children (as well as reasonable assurance the children were his). Men also gained a lifetime of toil and hardship to support their wives and children – though men naturally shoulder this responsibility gladly. Devlin correctly points out that in ages past, family courts and child support enforcement apparatus were not necessary to force fathers to support and raise their children. Civilization could never have sprouted up otherwise. As a bonus, both partners enjoyed easy access to sexual intercourse, without the headache and resource overhead of dating. Society won because the resulting children would be cared for by a mother and a father, rather than the costs of raising them pushed off onto the public coffers.
The Raw Deal Called Contemporary Marriage
We now run into the crux of the matter: classical marriage vs. contemporary marriage. Classical marriage was a boon for men; contemporary marriage is an unqualified disaster.
A brief history lesson is in order. In pre-1960’s America, it was difficult to obtain a divorce, and one partner had to admit fault. The massive risk of divorce simply did not exist, and women were raised as little girls to become wives and mothers. This is what I mean by “classical marriage.” The Sexual Revolution and modern divorce laws however, have blown apart the benefits of marriage for males, kept all of the original drawbacks, and piled on even more of them. One-by-one, the benefits of marriage for males have been obliterated:
Most women today are utterly incapable of managing a household. Devlin correctly points out that wives and mothers don’t just “happen.” In ages past, little girls were raised up to become them – this is not widely practiced any longer. With noble exception, young women nowadays don’t know how to cook, clean, or sew. Many haven’t the slightest idea on the care and feeding of husbands, or how to properly raise children. They let the house get filthy, and always want to eat out. They also lack economic acumen, leading to overspending and marital strife. As an aside, it is interesting to note that the word “economy” came from the Greek for “household management.” It only later mutated into “political economy”, and then finally “economy” to describe the financial interactions within an entire nation-state.
Marriage is no longer a guarantee of regular sex. A woman can freely hold out on her husband (and selfishly cheat on him to get her own release), without any consequence. If he uses force, he becomes a rapist, a felon, and is imprisoned for decades. One routinely hears tales of men being given regular sex prior to the marriage, only to have their bride slam her legs shut after the honeymoon.
Nowadays, women can cheat on their husbands consequence-free. It is no longer reasonable to assume that a wife’s children have her husband as the father. Feminists are even trying to outlaw home paternity testing kits to prevent men from finding out the truth (France has reportedly done this already). This amounts to men being forced by the State to subsidize their own cuckolding.
The quality of Western motherhood has declined, if the behavior of single mothers is any indication. Simply because a woman has a vagina is no guarantee she will be a devoted mother.
There is now no significant social capital to be gained by being married and raising a family.
Meanwhile, the original benefits for women have been left intact, with new benefits gained.
Women now have the foremost freedom: the freedom to rob. A woman can leave her marriage at any time, and while still having access to her husband’s wealth, via alimony and child support exactions. Even cohabitation is not much of a defensive posture, since alimony is merely replaced by “palimony”, and if children are involved, the male is still treated as a felon by the State.
In addition to robbing her ex-husband of his wealth, she is virtually guaranteed to get custody of the children. Devlin discusses in detail the soul-crushing feminist police-state that has been erected around the family court system and the enforcement of child support laws. In America, family courts routinely operate without Constitutional protections in place. After reading this section of the book, I became at a loss as to why we fought World War II. The oppressive powers of the family court system seem more a match for Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia than the Land of the Free.
There is virtually no social sanction against being an unwed mother by choice, no matter how dysfunctional the living situation (and resulting children) becomes. It is always the fault of the man, even if it was the woman who initiated the breakup. In fact, there appears to be social capital for being a single mother, as the media endlessly laud unwed mothers as heroic and self-sacrificing. I personally don’t like the phrase “single mother”, since this is a mealy-mouthed phrase likely coined by feminists. “Single mothers” include widows and women unjustly abandoned by their husbands; this allows feminists to accuse those critical of single motherhood of attacking widows and innocent victims. This ignores the fact that a huge proportion of “single mothers” are actually “unwed mothers.” Unwed mothers are a problem population, by all measure of empirical evidence.
To summarize, the current regime perversely incentivizes divorce and family breakup. Instead of honoring the contract, a woman is given enormous incentives to break the contract. Instead of being punished, she is rewarded economically. Instead of being remunerated for the losses inflicted, the ex-husband becomes a criminal as far as the State is concerned.
I fit into the mold of many of the young men Devlin mentions in the book: a decent man who cannot find a wife. Some would reply “Well, you’re not really decent then.” I would counter by noting that who women have sex with is not an accurate measure of decency (if it were, then Genghis Khan would be Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and Buddha all rolled into one). I’ll give you some stats:
I have never been arrested, charged with a crime, ordered to appear, ordered to perform community service, or have any other interactions with the legal system.
I make decent money as an engineer.
I live in a nice place.
My credit rating is rock solid.
I have a doctorate degree.
And yet, a wife has been utterly elusive to me. I saw again and again in college young women throwing themselves at men who’s post-college prospects were shaky at best. The conventional shaming language is already running through my critics heads: “you’re bitter”, “you’re angry over your lack of success”, “too bad”, et cetera. I shudder to imagine what life is like for people who have achieved even higher success than me: do they live like monks?
But as I have discussed previously on this blog, I am not sure if I even want a wife. As Devlin discusses in the book, divorce is a huge problem in the West. I recall (but was unable to find the source) of an article about a wealth management firm in the UK that was outright advising its wealthy male clients to avoid marriage due to untenable risk.
The saddest sack in America today is the heterosexual Christian male who is committed to virginity until marriage. Women, Christian or not, don’t want him. Christian women want alpha men that they can tame and fix – or “bring to Jesus.” Non-Christian women want an alpha man that can give good oral sex. Both of them only want high-status, high-value men, and unless Mr. Virgin is packing the hottest bod and loads of dough (perhaps like Tim Tebow), his prospects for acquiring a wife and sex in his lifetime are grim. The reader would do well to reflect on how women simultaneously want broken, untamed men who also happen to be rich and successful.
Devlin does not discuss the K-12 education system in much detail, which I think is a shame, since that is stronghold of feminist power in this country (just as much as academia). I know from my own experiences in public school, that the vast majority of female teachers I encountered (and women are the vast majority of all schoolteachers) are distraught, angry women with dicey marriages (or empty beds), who view boys as broncos to be busted. These women blame men for their own personal failings, and take their ire out on boys.
Wrap-Up and Final Remarks
I give the book 4 out of 5 stars. Devlin’s writing is pretty good, though at times he become bombastic (I really dislike uncommon Latin and French phrases in English-language writing). The book is a relatively short read (167 pages), and gave me a great deal worth pondering. I had to read it twice to cover all the bases. I am still unsure if men are capable of combating the feminist enemy. Orwell describes the proles in “1984” as being capable of shaking off the party like a horse swatting flies away with its tail. But the proles do not revolt. They are too plugged in, too controlled, too docile to rise up in arms and fight their captors. This describes much of contemporary Western maledom. However, the ranks of anti-feminists are likely to grow, as more and more men become snapped up in the police-state apparatus for no crime other than being born male. Will we ever achieve critical mass, and be able to re-institute benevolent patriarchy? Devlin asserts that should men ever unite against feminism and matriarchy, they could probably dictate any terms they desired to women. I would agree with this if it were not for a seemingly endless supply of manginas and white-knight dupes that fill the feminist ranks. Perhaps all it will take is time, as more and more men become victims of the police-state, more and more will come looking for answers and a plan for action. Is it hopeful or simply cowardly to hope the system will collapse under the weight of its own failures?
What would a male-led revolution even look like? Would it take place in the universities, as many other revolutions have? I doubt it, considering the modern university is an oppressive Marxist indoctrination center, good only for learning engineering and the sciences. Given almost total Cultural Marxist control of the mainstream media, I do not even see how electoral victories could be obtained. But then again, I’ve been surprised before. If you told me when I was a boy that homosexuals would one day not only be married, but you would become hunted for disagreeing with it, I would have thought you were sniffing glue. And yet, by dint of hard work, energetic activism, and enormous political campaign contributions, homosexuals have forced their filth down the throat of an entire nation and even the military. Unlike homosexual marriage, an ornament that affects < 2% of the population, our movement would provide enormous benefits to 100% of the population. The only problem is that our most likely clients are men that are already having their wealth confiscated by child support payments, thus preventing them from making campaign contributions. High-earning, content bachelors with high disposable incomes have little incentive to donate politically to a restore-the-patriarchy movement. And were electoral victories to actually be generated, the full force of the mangina billionaire class would descend down to crush the revolt. All we have is goodness and truth on our side; George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates have billions to marshal against us.