ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Mailvox: that which cannot survive won't

Who Nose asks a pertinent question:
"If you want to understand why women are not permitted serve in Church leadership, and why human societies do not survive more than a few generations of young women being permitted to choose their own spouses"

It begs the question: Who ought to choose their spouses?

The Church?
The Father?
The Mother?
The State?

The question is further begged: What kind of law would need to be passed to enforce the choosing of a spouse.

Finally, another question is begged: What would you do with the 99% of women who responded to the suggestion or the law with, "F*ck Off"?
  1. The Father, with the advice of the Mother.
  2. No law is necessary. Simply informing their daughter that a woman who is capable of choosing her own spouse is clearly also capable of paying for her own college education and supporting her own lifestyle decisions will suffice for most parents. If a woman is independent enough to insist on paying her own way in order to pursue a career, she's probably not wife-and-mother material anyhow and would likely end up a reproductive dead end regardless the options she is afforded.  We can always hope that instead of children, such a woman will contribute some revolutionary Powerpoint slideshows to society, produce a cure for cancer, or introduce some truly ground-breaking HR policies that will change the world for the better.
  3. I would simply wish them the best of fortune in their future endeavors.  But the number won't be anywhere nearly that high because women are, first and foremost, the practical sex.
Demographic patterns make it perfectly clear that societies where women are not only permitted, but encouraged, to make their own mating choices are not sustainable.  I find it deeply ironic that so many people who claim to firmly believe in evolution by natural selection demonstrate that they do not understand the basic concept of fitness as soon as the issue of societal demographics is raised.

One of two things will happen. The society will collapse or be overrun, or the government will pass laws to prevent the demographic collapse from taking place. There are no other alternatives; if Who Nose or anyone else should like to suggest one, I'm quite willing to add it to the list.  It should be kept in mind that a government which has the power to conscript men to die for the security of the nation quite clearly has the power to force women to marry and bear children for the same purpose.

Many would-be critics here don't seem to understand the implications of my being a libertarian. I don't believe that laws are the answer to undesirable human behavior, not because they are wrong or evil, but because they are ineffective. Customs and traditions are much more powerful; laws only tend to function if they are reasonably in line with them. Laws don't shape society, they tend to follow it instead.

Labels: ,

256 Comments:

1 – 200 of 256 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Brad April 29, 2013 7:17 PM  

Not that it matters; his point is well taken, but that use of "begging the question" doewn't seem correct.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 29, 2013 7:22 PM  

What would you do with the 99% of women who responded to the suggestion or the law with, "F*ck Off"?

It wouldn't be 99%. Many women would rather have other people make decisions for them, especially the important ones. Why do you think the welfare state went on the rise once women were permitted to vote?

The truth is, once most women become the submissive housewife, they become much more content with their lives. They crave to be lead by their husbands. Of course, you will not see this made into an official US Federal government scientific study of some kind.

Anonymous unsignedinteger April 29, 2013 7:23 PM  

Demographic patterns make it perfectly clear that societies where women are not only permitted, but encouraged, to make their own mating choices are not sustainable.

Clearly though, there are some women who should be allowed to pick...your wife did pick you, yes?

I would definitely think that she, at least, picked quite well.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 7:25 PM  

"Raises the question" is the correct phrase here, but of course almost no one uses "begs the question" in the right context anymore. I predict that within our lifetimes the original usage will be forgotten. Language changes.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 7:30 PM  

"Demographic patterns make it perfectly clear that societies where women are not only permitted, but encouraged, to make their own mating choices are not sustainable....The society will collapse or be overrun, or the government will pass laws to prevent the demographic collapse from taking place."

This begs the question, which demographic patterns do you refer to that result from women choosing their own spouses?

It also begs the question, what do you mean by "sustainable"?

Finally, this begs the question what else should fathers (with the input from mothers) determine for their daughters?

When to go potty?
Where to sit in a theater?
What color Shawl to wear to church?
Whether to eat lamb or poultry?

Anonymous Hyperphrenius April 29, 2013 7:30 PM  

One of two things will happen. The society will collapse or be overrun, or the government will pass laws to prevent the demographic collapse from taking place. There are no other alternatives; if Who Nose or anyone else should like to suggest one, I'm quite willing to add it to the list.

A minor catastrophe not resulting in a full collapse of society, but greatly reducing the affluence of the citizenry, could provide economic incentive for cultural change. Government programs would dissolve, and student loans would be hard to come by, and pink collar jobs would be unsustainable. Consumerism would be beyond the reach of the average individual, easy credit and the ability to live beyond their means would be gone, their sense of financial security would evaporate, and then perhaps they would do what most people do when the bad times roll in: return to God, begging him for aid. Religiosity could flourish.

Crime would rise, and with the government not having a lush economy to leech off of, would be rather hard pressed to combat it. Having their pasty white enclaves overrun by Africa's dusky hordes would make gun enthusiasts of the most rabbity of progressives.

Men would have to depend on their neighbors for help, real communities would reform, men would have to run their world, first-hand, instead of letting corporatist bureaucrats run it for them. The natural order of the sexes would be rapidly restored. Feminism is a rich man's vice. In austerity there is no room for such folly. Men would abandon it, and women would follow, as they always do.

A people who have turned away from feminism and progressivism, who bear their own arms and have returned to revering God, I can see how such a people might be able to reverse the demographic decline of the nation. "Be fruitful and multiply," and with the men actually taking charge and, rifle in hand, commanding their women, we can be certain that the women will want to have their husband's babies.

Such an economic downturn would certainly strain society, but it might not cause it to break. A reversal in culture and attitude could certainly lead to the society being rebuilt, little by little.

Also, remember the Bible. God has at times sent judges to restore the wayward Israel to its proper path, and there have been religious figures in Christian history who could arguably have been given the same charge. Divine intervention, God sending a prophet to lead the people back to the right path, is always a possibility. Though I personally wouldn't count on that; it would take a miracle.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 7:30 PM  

It should be kept in mind that a government which has the power to conscript men to die for the security of the nation quite clearly has the power to force women to marry and bear children for the same purpose.

Hasn't Russia come quite close to this already? As I recall, they have giant youth rallies where marriage or at least childbearing is pushed heavily.

Anonymous tinlaw April 29, 2013 7:31 PM  

It isn't a matter of making a law, it is a matter of fathers leading their families, which includes raising up his daughters with the understanding that they don't have to worry about finding a husband because Daddy is going to take care of it. Daughters love and trust a godly father who leads with love and wisdom. Naturally his wife also follows his lead, which has served as an example to the daughter for her whole life. It can be done. It is being done. Even in modern Amerika.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard April 29, 2013 7:33 PM  

O Nasal One, I see that you believe logic to be the tool of the oppressor. Elsewise, you would have familiarised yourself with what "begging the question" means.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 7:36 PM  

Tinlaw has it right. Problem is, most men are followers, not leaders, and the prevailing culture has spent decades ridiculing and pushing men out of that authoritative position in the household. Unfortunately, not enough men had the cojones to ignore the culture and stick to their guns.

Anonymous ENthePeasant April 29, 2013 7:36 PM  

"Many would-be critics here don't seem to understand the implications of my being a libertarian. I don't believe that laws are the answer to undesirable human behavior"

They find the entire notion dangerous since everything they love and desire in social change involves laws. Not that laws mean much, that bit about them not being affective isn't a concern. It's all about appearing to be the right kind of society. Actual success is of no importance until it destroys them.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:36 PM  

This should be no surprise to any of the Dread Ilk as Vox and I have both been advocating arranged marriage for a long... long time. Actually.. almost every parent with half a brain at one point or another figures arranged marriage is a much better route... even if their societal instincts force them to keep it buried deep in their own heads.

Anonymous bobert April 29, 2013 7:37 PM  

Hasn't Russia come quite close to this already? As I recall, they have giant youth rallies where marriage or at least childbearing is pushed heavily.

I hadn't heard about this.

For my (and the other readers') information - could you post a source?

I have heard many interesting things coming out of Russia...not sure which to believe as I don't know anyone familiar with their culture and I don't speak their language. But it seems as though they drunk deep of the fruit of secular progressivism during their time under the Soviet Union and have spit it back out quite harshly - the Orthodox Church seems to have much influence in the new Russia, and social conservatism seems to have a good deal of influence.

Then again, I do caution that I am no expert and am only relaying what a few others have told me.

It seems that once you hit peak secularism, you start going downhill fast and that momentum carries you back up the hill of tradition and conservatism, and hopefully faith in Christ as well.

Anonymous Anonymous April 29, 2013 7:38 PM  

Seems like MPAI is sure thrown around here when it’s convenient and ignored when it is not.
So these idiots…I mean fathers, are going to choose for their daughters?
Except for the fact that I personally know (and I am sure everyone here does) lots and lots of men, who are “fathers” (at least legally anyway) and are bone stupid and ignorant, not to mention just all around dirt bags, that’s a great idea Vox.
I feel bad as it is seeing these poor children saddled with those knuckleheads, now we are going to double down and let the fool make the second most important decision in her life.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:39 PM  

people under 25 are almost all universally retarded.

How it can be expected for them to pick a decent mate is beyond my kin. Plus... these people are going to be joining our families. We should damned well have some say in who it is that we will be associating with for the rest of our time on this miserable rock.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:40 PM  

"Seems like MPAI is sure thrown around here when it’s convenient and ignored when it is not.
So these idiots…I mean fathers, are going to choose for their daughters?"

Given that observable reality is those "idiots" successfully managed to reproduce and raised a daughter... then obviously the odds are more in their favor than the brainless child.

Anonymous Boogeyman April 29, 2013 7:42 PM  

Or perhaps - like in the sci-fi novel "Memory" (Linda Nagata) - we could leave the choice of spouse to a post singularity computer that does a calculation based on genetics, personality analyisis, and some other things which we can not now fathom.

Who knows, young women might be more willing to accept it if the choice was made 'scientifically' instead of by their mean, stupid father.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 7:44 PM  

"This should be no surprise to any of the Dread Ilk as Vox and I have both been advocating arranged marriage for a long... long time. "

It raises the question: How does this special talent or skill for choosing a spouse for another person accrue to a male after having put his organ inside another woman without protection?

Other questions: Is it magic? Can you go to school for this skill? Do mothers possess this skill? Do men possess this skill immediately upon conception or does it appear at some point after conception?

Blogger Christina April 29, 2013 7:44 PM  

I don't believe that laws are the answer to undesirable human behavior, not because they are wrong or evil, but because they are ineffective. Customs and traditions are much more powerful; laws only tend to function if they are reasonably in line with them. Laws don't shape society, they tend to follow it instead.

This idea seems to be the one that largely is missed by libertarians in the large general manner of speaking. The ones I go toe to toe with are usually the ones spilling their guts over the same liberal-humanist notion of "what's right for you may not be right for me...so shut your pie-hole."

They don't really believe in social and self censorship any more than they do state censorship.

When I use the word "censorship," I'm using it in a more broad sense than what is generally used today - Not about preventing the publication of works or free speech, but the ability to speak out against certain actions and behaviors.

I think its why I gravitated to this blog in the first place - you seem to have a similar understanding of the failures of full libertine behavior on a society at large.

To the subject at hand - here's one woman totally in agreement with the idea of arranged marriages under these conditions.

Blogger El Borak April 29, 2013 7:45 PM  

Bobert: Try this one.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has long been at war with his country's plummetting birth rate, with a concert of measures designed to boost his compatriots' ailing sex drive...

Of course, it's not really sex drive that's the issue, it's the issue* that's the issue...

* or lack thereof

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:46 PM  

"It raises the question: How does this special talent or skill for choosing a spouse for another person accrue to a male after having put his organ inside another woman without protection? "

You realize we're talking about demographics here right? Having kids is the point.

The point is not to marry them off to some perfect mate. The point is to marry them off and set them to popping out babies.

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 7:46 PM  

>>This begs the question, which demographic patterns do you refer to that result from women choosing their own spouses?

The birthrate becomes negative within a 2 generations of giving women general freedom of their own affairs.


>>It also begs the question, what do you mean by "sustainable"?

Failure to reproduce results in replacement by a culture that actually reproduces and thus one that doesn't give freedom to their women women.

Read up on the fall Babylon, Sparta, Rome, ect.

Anonymous tinlaw April 29, 2013 7:46 PM  

We are talking about real MEN. Men who have already realized that their society and culture is going to hell in a handbasket. The myth of the stupid father lives... alas. Stop watching TV sitcoms.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 7:47 PM  

This begs the question, which demographic patterns do you refer to that result from women choosing their own spouses?

Dude, you've already been lectured by numerous people that you are using the phrase incorrectly. I let it go once. Get it right. And do you really not understand what demographic patterns are? Birth rates and marriage rates, or if you prefer, native population growth.

Anonymous Matthew April 29, 2013 7:49 PM  

This is easy, folks. All it requires is that a father be prepared to ostracize his daughters, and that his wife be obedient. A woman either lives under the authority of a man (father, husband, brother), or else she is a harlot*. Harlots get cut off.

You raise your girls knowing this. They won't be going to college, because college is for butthex. If they move out, it will be with husbands approved by their father, or else they are no longer part of the family.

* Widows are a special case

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 7:50 PM  

"Seems like MPAI is sure thrown around here when it’s convenient and ignored when it is not. So these idiots…I mean fathers, are going to choose for their daughters?"

There are idiots and then there are IDIOTS. Given a choice between the two, go with the idiots. As has already been pointed out to you, at least we know the idiot is reproductively fit. The IDIOTS, as is abundantly clear, are not necessarily so.

Anonymous Matthew April 29, 2013 7:53 PM  

Pro tip for people who have been smacked for misusing "begs the question": replace that phrase with "raises the question" every time you feel the desire to use it. If you wish to accuse someone of circular reasoning, say "circular reasoning". Just stop using the phrase "begs the question" entirely, because you're not tall enough for this ride.

Markku thanks you in advance.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 7:53 PM  

How does this special talent or skill for choosing a spouse for another person accrue to a male after having put his organ inside another woman without protection?

You're confusing the talent with the right. The talent stems from men being left brain dominant. It's science. Are you really going to argue with science, Who Nose?

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:56 PM  

anyone that knows anything about Game should be rabidly in favor of arranged marriage.

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 7:56 PM  

>>It raises the question: How does this special talent or skill for choosing a spouse for another person accrue to a male after having put his organ inside another woman without protection?

Despite your infantile attempts at mockery, I'll answer this. Women change when they become mothers. They're become consumed into the care of their children instead consumed about themselves all the time. When Men become father's they become consumed with protecting/supporting their wives, children, and the future off spring of their children. Men with children have repeatedly been shown to be far more interested in the future of a group than single men, single women, and Mothers are.

These changes are well documented in scientific studies and the results of natural hormonal changes that kick in when people become parents.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 7:57 PM  

We need a Dread Ilk marriage arrangement coop service. Children of Dread Ilk can be married off to the children of other Ilk.


...


What could go wrong?

Anonymous blog commenter April 29, 2013 7:58 PM  

Vox must have royally f#cked up a powerpoint presentation at some point in his past to engender that kind of hate.

Anonymous mistaben April 29, 2013 7:58 PM  

My oldest daughter is still a child, but a few of our dearest, most upstanding old friends have sons I'm keeping track of.

Anonymous Boogeyman April 29, 2013 8:02 PM  

Perhaps a revival of the practice of getting the father's blessing. She can pick but he has to approve, resulting in a choice they can both live with... or at least share the blame for.

Anonymous Jill April 29, 2013 8:08 PM  

"Demographic patterns make it perfectly clear that societies where women are not only permitted, but encouraged, to make their own mating choices are not sustainable."

Simple biology dictates that this is true. Women are the biological losers (or winners, depending on how you look at it). Marriage and children must be kept at high cultural value for women to want to go through the effort. Once these are of no value, what incentives do women have to put their bodies through the stress? Why should they lose sleep, or risk losing their essential autonomous beings? Of course, if they are healthy, or have strong inner cores, they won't lose themselves at all, and they will benefit psychologically from bearing offspring; it will be part of their growth as autonomous persons (for many, not all).

"Many would-be critics here don't seem to understand the implications of my being a libertarian. I don't believe that laws are the answer to undesirable human behavior,.."

Thank you. Agreed.

I can't agree with the system of fathers choosing mates for their daughters. Ideally, the daughter, prospective mate, and fathers and mothers should all take part in the decision. I understand that no family is ideal, but when we're discussing a lifetime, this is not a decision that should rest only on a man who will not have to be the one enduring.

Anonymous Jill April 29, 2013 8:12 PM  

"You're confusing the talent with the right. The talent stems from men being left brain dominant. It's science. Are you really going to argue with science, Who Nose?"

Men are left dominant, and women are more balanced (that is, not right brained dominant). Um, I'd hedge my bets with balanced, thanks.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 8:14 PM  

I can't agree with the system of fathers choosing mates for their daughters. Ideally, the daughter, prospective mate, and fathers and mothers should all take part in the decision. I understand that no family is ideal, but when we're discussing a lifetime, this is not a decision that should rest only on a man who will not have to be the one enduring.

At the end of the day, every decision is a democracy of one. If the final vote isn't the father, it is the daughter. We now have sufficient evidence to compare the results, and it turns out there is a reason every society that has survived for a significant length of time is based on some form of the Roman paterfamilias.

Recall the question only dealt with daughters. But Roman sons weren't given any choices either, as a general rule. And the Romans dealt with the same challenges we are; look up the Lex Julii sometime.

Anonymous Josh April 29, 2013 8:14 PM  

We need a Dread Ilk marriage arrangement coop service. Children of Dread Ilk can be married off to the children of other Ilk.


...


What could go wrong?


Sign us up in a few years.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 8:16 PM  

Men are left dominant, and women are more balanced (that is, not right brained dominant). Um, I'd hedge my bets with balanced, thanks.

Unwise move. All that does is "balance" logic with feelings. Do you really think your ability to solve a math problem would improve if you balanced the numbers with how you felt about them?

"Sure, 10 + 5 equals 15, but I like round numbers. So, we'll say it equals 20."

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 8:21 PM  

"Men are left dominant, and women are more balanced (that is, not right brained dominant). Um, I'd hedge my bets with balanced, thanks."

History says "balanced" fails. Every time.

Anonymous Philalethes April 29, 2013 8:25 PM  

http://begthequestion.info

Get it right.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 8:26 PM  

Fathers may occasionally be idiots, but don't have the female imperative or the hamster with afterburners on. Generally the choice - more properly permission - involves him and the other male members of the family doing seriously bodily injury if the daughter is threatened. (We also used to have dowry - now we have it in the form of the woman trying to earn it herself).

The daughter would have a veto - she has to say "I do!" with full free will. The Father walks with the bride down the aisle and gives her away.

Finally, this begs the question what else should fathers (with the input from mothers) determine for their daughters?

When to go potty?
Where to sit in a theater?
What color Shawl to wear to church?
Whether to eat lamb or poultry?


1. Before we leave, and not until you are on the toilet. Perhaps you would want your daughter to just urinate and defecate anywhere, like in your living room or a public park.

2. Where the noise is least and where the view is good.

3. Something liturgically appropriate, black for ash wednesday and good friday, white for easter and christmas, blue for marian solemnities.

4. You eat what your Mother cooks, meat and vegetables, or go hungry.

libertarianism, etc.

This is perhaps the hardest to understand. But there are lots of very religious Christian libertarians that would not impose anything at the point of a sword or gun - including by proxy. Note the women are imposing the costs of their waywardness on "government", i.e. taxpayers. It takes a village to pay for a slut and her john.

Jesus is there - in the church - when someone wants to get out of the gutter, be it alcoholism, drugs, gambling, or the cock carousel or the male equivalent.

Also it is not the "mating choices" per se, but the tendency to spend the period between puberty and the late 20s seeking alpha, then realizing they can't declare bankruptcy and start over - yet the clock ticks on. DeToqueville commented that women were educated and made choices, but it was in the context of a Puritan framework, so the men weren't cads, and Fathers would still be consulted so custom enforced the choice.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis April 29, 2013 8:27 PM  

Well it makes sense. Socialism tanker their demographics and now Russians are literally fighting time. Reversing a population decline isn't easy, and it can rapidly lead to societal collapse

Anonymous bobert April 29, 2013 8:30 PM  

Um, I'd hedge my bets with balanced, thanks.

When someone (nearly always a leftist) starts a sentence with 'um', brace yourself for retardation...

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 8:33 PM  

At the end of the day, every decision is a democracy of one. If the final vote isn't the father, it is the daughter.

Get thee to a nunnery!. There need not be a final vote, it might require the agreement of both, or it is gridlock or rejection.

The daughter can rebel, but that is part of freedom - reject the local authority, but then bear the consequences.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 8:35 PM  

Somehow thinking of "Game", and this topic makes the full text on the hoodie rather ironic.

http://theworstthingsforsale.com/2013/04/29/dumpster-diving/

Anonymous Daniel April 29, 2013 8:44 PM  

this is not a decision that should rest only on a man who will not have to be the one enduring.

If you believe that most fathers have whims, and act on them, you would be wrong. It is obvious that child self-determination in marriage has led to a high divorce rate and childlessness. The only option then is parental decision-making.

The father should make the decision so that the mother never has to take on the burden of guilt in the case of a bad match.

Very simple.

Blogger IrishFarmer April 29, 2013 8:45 PM  

"Some fathers are too stupid to decide for their daughters whom to marry."

You don't build an entire system around the minority of outliers. If a system results in a small amount of "bad" like idiot fathers choosing the wrong guy, then you don't throw out the whole system you just mitigate the problem.

Especially since we already know that allowing daughters to choose their own partners inevitably leads to a collapsed birthrate. It's just not a reasonable choice. And your only criticism of it is based on flawed logic. Your indignation is getting in the way of clear thought on this one, Who Nose.

Anonymous Toolbox April 29, 2013 8:45 PM  

Who picks? Why the father? What's so special about him?

From the Christian or Biblical perspective, the father is the leader of the household (Christ to the woman, etc.). The children are given by God to parents, not the state or church. The natural conclusion is one of duty. The father continues his duty of protection of his daughter in infancy all the way through the selection/seeking of a mate for her. When deposited with the man of his approval (as Vox pointed out, it's a democracy of one), the father passes his duties on to the husband.

It's so odd that the natural way it appears God designed families, marriage, children, and societies tends to produce the healthiest civilizations, as empirical evidence shows--and all this without any need for laws outside the simple ones He instituted so many years ago (so maligned today by Christians).

Anonymous Anonymous April 29, 2013 8:47 PM  

I am surrounded every day by fools, dirt bags, people who look like they congealed in a gutter and most of them managed to screw and have children.

Prisons are full of “reproductively fit” men.

I am amazed you are asserting that being “reproductively fit” qualifies a man to make a decision that would require wisdom and discernment, not to mention the ability to be selfless.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 8:52 PM  

"I am amazed you are asserting that being “reproductively fit” qualifies a man to make a decision that would require wisdom and discernment, not to mention the ability to be selfless."

Given that the male is there to have an influence then quite clearly he has something else going for him beyond just being reproductively fit doesn't he?

He is an involved parent. Otherwise he would not be around to make the decision.

He also has a ton of good reasons to take some time and consider the matter carefully... as he will be putting up with any drama created by a poor decision.

Men want to be left alone. Making a good decision in this case... gets you left alone more.

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 8:55 PM  

rufusdog, it's a sliding scale. If the parents are scum then the children are going to brainless scum. Father will still probably make a better choice than the child.

Anonymous Jill April 29, 2013 8:58 PM  

"Unwise move. All that does is "balance" logic with feelings. Do you really think your ability to solve a math problem would improve if you balanced the numbers with how you felt about them?"

I'm going to speak from experience here because life has taught me some lessons. For a start, marriage isn't a math problem. Your analogy is, therefore, lost on me at this point in my life. I used to think everything could be solved with logic and knowing things and understanding facts. I used to be left-brained to the point of obtuseness. Being that way didn't solve my relationship issues; it made me an autistic weirdo. It blinded me. Very left-brained men are going to suffer from the same kind of blindness if they continue to discount emotions and/or instincts as being valid to the human experience. God gave us multiple parts to our brains for a reason (the brain is another realm where the left-right division is a false paradigm). No, I'll continue to go with balanced, thanks. And I'll be forever grateful that I took my mother's balanced advice to me on marrying my husband.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 8:59 PM  

I am amazed you are asserting that being “reproductively fit” qualifies a man to make a decision that would require wisdom and discernment, not to mention the ability to be selfless.

I am amazed that you think the daughter of such a man is going to be any more capable of a good decision than the man. Do you think people are usually more or less objective about themselves than they are about others?

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 8:59 PM  

Bah.

The root of the problem here is that you people think marriage has something to do with some mystical happiness based on compatibility.

It doesn't.

Marriage is about commitment.

Happiness is about choosing to be happy.

Anonymous VD April 29, 2013 9:02 PM  

I used to think everything could be solved with logic and knowing things and understanding facts.

Solipsism alert. Do you not understand that you are arguing for doing the less logically correct thing because it feels better? You're confusing the use of logic to understand and solve relationship issues and the use of logic to make optimal choices. They are not synonymous.

Logic should take feelings into account. But the feelings should not, ideally, be part of the decision-making process. If you can't afford something, you can't afford it, how much you want it will not change that.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:04 PM  

We need some data collection here on ilk offspring.

How amongst the ilk have children approaching the marrying age? Also... what do you consider the marrying age?

Personally i think we're putting it off way to long these days.

They should be married around 20 if not sooner... take a couple years to learn to be married and learn to live together in a peaceful home... then they need to start popping out little ones.

Anonymous whatever April 29, 2013 9:04 PM  

The retard sage speaks:

If you believe that most fathers have whims, and act on them, you would be wrong. It is obvious that child self-determination in marriage has led to a high divorce rate and childlessness. The only option then is parental decision-making.


He is a wise retard sage. Wise enough to ignore the monster with bloody claws standing right in the middle of the room. No fault divorce and mother having custody of the child 100% and, really, divorce being tolerated at all. Notice that no divorce doesn't mean the wife can't leave.... merely that she can't remarry. And if she hates her husband enough to spinster herself, well then, I'm confident that is quite rare enough and displays an impressive worthlessness on his part.

But of course, first we must omit the obvious to arrive at the improbable, eh?

Anonymous Anonymous April 29, 2013 9:04 PM  

I simply do not see wisdom, discernment, and selflessness when I go out into the world among men.
This fact leads me to conclude that arranged marriages are a bad idea.
Men that I meet that have wisdom, discernment, and are selfless are the rare exception, certainly not the general rule.

I do see the merit is what is being said here, but I think it is a bit of utopian scheming, it just doesn’t meet the world as it really is. Sure, for a very small group of right minded Christian people arranged marriages would probably be a wonderful idea. I can think of at least one person I know who went against her father’s wishes and deep down knows he was right and she screwed up big time and now she is stuck.

This thing is a step too far, the daughter should be free to choose, the father just needs veto power (maybe more than one).

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 29, 2013 9:06 PM  

We've discussed with our daughters that their marriage will likely be arranged. At 11 and 13, their biggest concern: "Will you make sure we're attracted to him?" Uh, yeah, there will be no pussy, effeminate son-in-laws in this family. (For those who aren't aware, the biggest attraction killer is a supplicating, whiny, self righteous, pussy). See ROK - Thatch's latest.

Anonymous whatever April 29, 2013 9:07 PM  

Retard sage alert:

rufusdog, it's a sliding scale. If the parents are scum then the children are going to brainless scum. Father will still probably make a better choice than the child.


ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! Full on retard sage alert!

Tell me, oh retard sage, why is capitalism better than big daddy socialism?

Use little words to suit your little mind.

Blogger Some dude April 29, 2013 9:09 PM  

@Who Nose

It raises the question: How does this special talent or skill for choosing a spouse for another person accrue to a male after having put his organ inside another woman without protection?

And now we know exactly what you think the sum contribution of a father to a family should be. Basically he is a sperm donor (and if he is "lucky" he can be an atm as well)

He is not someone who provides guidance, love, courage, protection, strength to the children. He didn't read his daughter stories every night, held her when she cried from nightmares, assured her of male love free from sex, help her study her homework, look out for her when she was in trouble, pay for her schooling, her food, her home, the heating, the water, the taxes. he didn't protect her and her mother from all the unscrupulous swindlers, thieves, murderers, cheats and wage enslavers. Nor did he stick up for her and her mother against the rest of the world in general. He never gave her advice based on his years of experience fighting the world, he never gave her pride, he never shared his wisdom, his learning, nor was he ever just - no matter what - simply there.

No. In your sick, twisted, evil, hate filled, c***y little mind the only thing your father ever did for you was to stick his unprotected cock inside your mother and dump you in there. After that his contribution was over, finit.

Well, if that is the truth it explains why you are such a low life POS as to describe fathers in that fashion. As well as explaining why you use a smart ass, passive aggressive, look-at-me-I'm-so-clever tone of writing that in and of itself, regardless of the content makes me want to slap you right across the face for it's utter cowardly gutlessness.

The one good thing about smart assed cretins like you is that you general write views I disagree with.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 9:10 PM  

It is a feedback system. Wayward daughters produce irresponsible sons.

If culture says "Men, you are responsible", many will live up to it.

The Paterfamilias is stable - it worked in all the long lasting cultures - note Divorce was one of the things that started the erosion on Rome.

The long lasting family based cultures were Confucian China, the Roman Republic, Judiasm and Christianity, and Islam.

The threat of Islam is not Al Queda - they are merely impatient. It is from the feminatiosocialists.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 29, 2013 9:10 PM  

Though my marriage was hardly arranged, he was the very first man my father approved of. I was well aware upon my father meeting a boyfriend whether or not he approved of him. When he met RLB, he spent the day with him and left saying, "She's yours, take care of her."

Anonymous Anonymous April 29, 2013 9:10 PM  

Men are weaker than women in the whole family, emotional manipulation, whining department. Tradition gives them 100% authority to make up for this. If dad and mom split authority, mom and daughter will gang up and force dad out, and daughter will run off with a sexy bad boy. But if Dad has 100% authority, the women can't cut him out. They'll have to work with him. He'll at least be able to register a temporary veto while they nag him into submission.

Blogger Some dude April 29, 2013 9:11 PM  

Correction:

The one good thing about smart assed cretins like you is that you general write views I disagree with.

Meant to say:

The one good thing about smart assed cretins like you is that you generally write views I despise.

Thanks for your time!

Anonymous Lana April 29, 2013 9:11 PM  

We didn't pick our oldest two daughter's husbands, but for all practical purposes we had veto power. We have one left to go, but she tends to run them by us pretty quickly so as not to get attached to someone we do not approve of. And to answer Nate's question, even though I'm not a member of the Ilk, I think 20-21 would be fine, but I don't think younger is a bad option either. Depends on the young lady in question.

Anonymous T14 April 29, 2013 9:11 PM  

Apparently more people than I ever imagined are not sufficiently humiliated by the idea of marrying into a poor or broken family.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:11 PM  

"This fact leads me to conclude that arranged marriages are a bad idea."

Tell us about the discernment and wisdom of the 19 year old girls you know.

We're on pins and needles.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 9:12 PM  

bobert April 29, 2013 7:37 PM

Hasn't Russia come quite close to this already? As I recall, they have giant youth rallies where marriage or at least childbearing is pushed heavily.

I hadn't heard about this.

For my (and the other readers') information - could you post a source?


It's been happening for several years now. Of course, we should note that this approach (as of 2007) is surely doomed to failure, since it advocates unconstrained sex without need to worry about marriage, since it is understood that the State will be the true father. I suspect Putin is already rethinking this anyway, as he seems to be more pro-religion these days.

Blogger eidolon hope April 29, 2013 9:16 PM  

"I find it deeply ironic that so many people who claim to firmly believe in evolution by natural selection demonstrate that they do not understand the basic concept of fitness as soon as the issue of societal demographics is raised."

How true. If they were logically consistent they would vote along the lines of how best to preserve their nation's wealth.

Anonymous whatever April 29, 2013 9:17 PM  

I will now close the argument with the one question every... person... here dares not ask. Though it is the problem most pressing.

Why do you believe the father will have the best interests of his daughter at heart?

We know why the daughter will at least try to have her best interests at heart. But the father? WHY.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 9:18 PM  

Also a father being male has the complimentary and more detached perspective and isn't suffering from estrogen poisoning.

But the other half is Fathers would either protect their daughters and not let them go on the cock carousel, and insure the men who got the daughters pregnant would "volunteer" instead of dying of lead poisoning.

The free but meaningless sex is the opposite and would not thrive (and is dying even now).

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 29, 2013 9:20 PM  

Why do you believe the father will have the best interests of his daughter at heart?

"dares not ask?" I'm trying for the life of me to figure out how f'd in the head you've got to be to ask this.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:21 PM  

"We know why the daughter will at least try to have her best interests at heart. But the father? WHY."

1) He loves her.

2) procuring a good solid husband for her will get him lots of grandkids... which are awesome.

3) procuring a good solid husband for her will radically reduce the drama in the father's life compared to a crappy husband.

4) a good son-in-law brings skill and talent to the family. Always welcome.

5) Its his damned job.

Anonymous Jill April 29, 2013 9:22 PM  

"Solipsism alert. Do you not understand that you are arguing for doing the less logically correct thing because it feels better?"

No, you're wrong. I'm not making that argument. You've misconstrued what I said. It doesn't ever feel better to me to go outside of logic. It's painful. What I actually said was that God gave us multiple parts of our brains for a reason. Logic is a human construct. It works great for math--most of the time. But even the most logical mathematicians--Newton for example--relied on inexplicable inspiration. Oh, and getting really pissed off at others, which caused him to go hide in his basement and work. See? Emotion.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:22 PM  

""dares not ask?" I'm trying for the life of me to figure out how f'd in the head you've got to be to ask this."

Remember.. there is a 99% certainty that we're talking to a homosexual here... and thus... we can be almost certain that he had no father at all... and is making up for it by sucking dicks.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:25 PM  

I favor a loose form of arranged marriage where the daughter is allowed the illusion of choice by providing her with a number of pre-qualified excellent options that have already been pre-approved by the father.

Dad: Here. You have A, B, C and D darlin'. Which one do you like?

Daughter: hrm... These are my only choices?

Dad: Yes.

Daughter: Oh I don't know they are all very dashing.

Dad: So C then?

Daughter: ok!

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 9:25 PM  

Nate April 29, 2013 9:04 PM

We need some data collection here on ilk offspring.

How amongst the ilk have children approaching the marrying age? Also... what do you consider the marrying age?


My older daughter just turned 13, and the girl hormones are ramping up. Got an 8-year-old son and a 5-year-old daughter also. I consider ideal marrying age for a girl to be somewhere between 17-20, to a guy 3-4 years older.

Personally i think we're putting it off way to long these days.

They should be married around 20 if not sooner... take a couple years to learn to be married and learn to live together in a peaceful home... then they need to start popping out little ones.


Agreed, at least for the girls. I think it is best for a man to somewhat established before marriage. If my son were married somewhere between 20-24 to girl at least 3 years younger, I think that would be ideal. The age difference makes it a little more natural for a man to lead.

Anonymous Jill April 29, 2013 9:28 PM  

And about the solipsism bit--sorry, but I'm not biting on that one. If experience and observation of the world can't teach me something about the world, then, philosophically speaking, what's the point? Not everything must be a randomized, double-blind study--although if you looked, you would find studies (I've read them) on how we as humans make decisions, and for most humans of either sex, logic isn't it.

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 9:30 PM  

>>We know why the daughter will at least try to have her best interests at heart. But the father? WHY.

whatever, let me break this down in terms you might comprehend(but probably not): The father has his grandchildren's best interest at heart. The daughter will generally be more interest in the pleasure of the moment rather than the long term suitability of having unprotected sex with a convicted felon.

Anonymous whatever April 29, 2013 9:31 PM  

I said:

Why do you believe the father will have the best interests of his daughter at heart?


Retard sage:

"dares not ask?" I'm trying for the life of me to figure out how f'd in the head you've got to be to ask this.


A woman WORTHY of the world so very close informs me of the facts, jack.

Protestant Retard Sage speaks:

1) He loves her.

2) procuring a good solid husband for her will get him lots of grandkids... which are awesome.

3) procuring a good solid husband for her will radically reduce the drama in the father's life compared to a crappy husband.

4) a good son-in-law brings skill and talent to the family. Always welcome.

5) Its his damned job.


The issue of the husband;s USE to the father is quite separate from her happiness or the man's goodness. Granted, many wise retard sage fathers have been rather disappointed in their fierce focus on USE when bullying their daughters into marrying completely unsuitable men, but still, that you can think USE is noble.... is interesting. Of course you have to mix what is USE to the father with what is USE to the daughter, but heh, sloppy thinking is the trademark of the retard sage.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 9:32 PM  

And you see, Nate has it perfectly tuned on the "looser form" approach. We've all been raised reading those stories about other cultures where parents arrange a husband for a daughter, sight unseen, purely as a business arrangement with a wealthy family or somesuch. Inevitably, the woman doesn't see her husband until the day they are married, and he turns out to be some middle-aged malignant hunchback with a gaping leer. You see, those stories--while they have doubtless occurred in real life--have been carefully presented to you to sell the idea of Western egalitarian romance, rather than the Biblical and historical truths of mankind.

Fact is, there is no reason at all that a woman can't be happy, and in fact madly in love with a man who has been chosen for her by a wise (and somewhat clever) father. This especially works well if the daughter also considers her father someone worthy of being madly in love with...

Get it, guys?

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:35 PM  

Rycamor

hrm... my oldest boy is to young for her... Ender should be in that range though.

hrm...

we can talk about your younger daughter though. I have 3 boys all suitable ages.

Blogger Log April 29, 2013 9:37 PM  

"Fact is, there is no reason at all that a woman can't be happy, and in fact madly in love with a man who has been chosen for her by a wise (and somewhat clever) father."

There is no reason at all that a woman can be happy, and in fact perfectly miserable with a man who has been chosen for her by a wise (and somewhat whatever) father.

In fact, there is no reason to conclude anything one way or another - God is the source of love (1 John 4:7), not clever fathers, and if He doesn't bestow it, it really doesn't matter whether the woman or her father chooses her mate.

Blogger Log April 29, 2013 9:39 PM  

By the by, that also happens to kill Vox's "love is a choice" notion.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:39 PM  

"The issue of the husband;s USE to the father is quite separate from her happiness or the man's goodness."

As if your idiocy hadn't been sufficiently proven... you gave us this. Just to make sure.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:39 PM  

"In fact, there is no reason to conclude anything one way or another - God is the source of love (1 John 4:7), not clever fathers, and if He doesn't bestow it, it really doesn't matter whether the woman or her father chooses her mate."

Speaking of morons...

Anonymous Mr. Pea April 29, 2013 9:42 PM  

Gad no we do not need woman in HR. I'm a automobile tech. I have never worked for a corporation before in the automobile services until now due to being laid off my last job and the market here taking a severe beating economic wise. I am constantly beaten over the head with the "show compassion" and etc. crap drip-drip colander. Had a district manager visit the other day while I was doing a top-end clean (of course it's going to misfire a bit)... "Shut it down! Shut it Down! You have a misfire! You know you have a misfire right Mr. Pea?" Yeah well... you should have seen the carbon tracking on the porcelain of all the spark plugs I just pulled out and the tiny little hole in the spark plug boot on #1. "oh. Can a top end clean make it misfire?" (Thinking: Shotgun... blow face off). Just curious. Are you a master tech, driveability tech, or any tech at all? "(Smiles) I've turned a few wrenches in my life." All I needed to know... an oil jockey.

All this corporate HR feel good drip drip politically correct crap has turned all the corporate lifer paper pushers male and female into a bunch of idiots.

I always thought fixing peoples cars right was compassionate enough. Now they want me to coddle them, change their diapers, wipe their ass, not gawk at their daughter titties, and scratch by balls in private. Dammit! I scratched my balls!

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 9:48 PM  

Whatever

Civilizations that cannot maintain at least replacement level reproduction die. History proves this.

Vox provided two options to alleviate the problem.

Do you have a better option? or would you perfer to see the civilization die?

Anonymous Joe Doakes April 29, 2013 9:54 PM  

If she's a fat blonde chick in St. Paul and left to her own devices, she's already headed for single motherhood in public housing on welfare, she and her mulatto child. Which dovetails nicely with Vox theory about women seeking the dominant culture. It'll be a few years before they start taking the Muslim sack-dress in any significant numbers, but the gangsta pants-around-your-knees culture is being crowded out already.

Anonymous TheExpat April 29, 2013 9:55 PM  

Speaking of (in)ability to make good decisions...

Slate: "Why Do So Many Moms Feel Sorry for Dzhokhar? Why Are Teen Girls in Love With Him?"
http://isteve.blogspot.jp/2013/04/slate-why-do-so-many-moms-feel-sorry.html

But no, by all means go ahead and let women make decisions according to their hamsters.
Everything will work out just fine. Trust me.

Anonymous Eric April 29, 2013 10:02 PM  

VD,

Can we somehow get some more choices for thumbnails when posting links to fb? The McRapey rabbit is kind of creepy for those not in the know.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:05 PM  

'You're confusing the talent with the right. The talent stems from men being left brain dominant. It's science. Are you really going to argue with science, Who Nose?"

This raises the question: what makes for a good pairing that it would require "left brain" thinking to achieve?

Further, this raises the question, wouldn't those with better social skill and intuitive skills (right brain) be in a better position to match two people?

Finally, this raises the question, from where does the "right" to choose another person's mate derive from?

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 10:06 PM  

We can always hope that instead of children, such a woman will contribute some revolutionary Powerpoint slideshows to society, produce a cure for cancer, or introduce some truly ground-breaking HR policies that will change the world for the better.

It would suffice if she simply did not leave her corner of the world worse off for her presence. Undertakers are ground breaking, assuming cremation isn't opted for.

When men run things, it is terrible. When women do other than rocking the cradle, it is armageddon anniliation bad.

Anonymous Anonagain April 29, 2013 10:11 PM  

The question beggar obviously doesn't want answers. He/she/it is simply a passive-aggressive little shit who got its panties in a big ole bunch over Vox's support of arranged marriage. Not being in possession the slightest intellectual wherewithal to present any arguments against this heinous declaration, the brainless blatherer takes a giant rhetorical crap - to which Vox and others respond.

But all the answers to all its questions simply bounce off its thick skull - the moron is, predictably, impervious to reason.

Although, Nose Nothing did provide an opportunity for Vox to present a logical case for arranged marriage - which is really the only utility of these Leftist lunatics' incessant inanity. And I note that the other blithering idiot's attempt to bolster Nose Nothing's indefensible position is just as intellectually impoverished, and outright laughable in its utter contempt for reason.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:11 PM  

"At the end of the day, every decision is a democracy of one. If the final vote isn't the father, it is the daughter. We now have sufficient evidence to compare the results, and it turns out there is a reason every society that has survived for a significant length of time is based on some form of the Roman paterfamilias."

This is funny because the writer thinks it's a fact, but it can't be proven. It's funny too because posits no moral quality to the funny claim.

It raises the question, how can you prove a father's choice of mate is better than a daughter's choice of a mate.

It's very funny.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 10:12 PM  

Nate April 29, 2013 9:35 PM

Rycamor

hrm... my oldest boy is to young for her... Ender should be in that range though.

hrm...

we can talk about your younger daughter though. I have 3 boys all suitable ages.


God help the world if the Ilk start interbreeding. The resultant 140+ IQ, gun-toting, hard-reasoning spawn might just create a new empire to rival the 18th century British. Now that would be a patriarchy w aspire toward.

Anonymous rycamor April 29, 2013 10:12 PM  

err... a patriarchy worth aspiring toward.

Anonymous Lana April 29, 2013 10:14 PM  

"We know why the daughter will at least try to have her best interests at heart. But the father? WHY."

You assume that because a daughter will try to have her best interests at heart, she will be able to make a good decision. I have 3 girls and I would have sooner let their 15 year old little brother make the decision about who makes good marriage material. Their father, obviously, has much more love, compassion and good sense.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 10:18 PM  

Probiscus postulates Further, this raises the question, wouldn't those with better social skill and intuitive skills (right brain) be in a better position to match two people?

It would feel right but be wrong. Matching is not about hear (torching?, flaming?). This is like investing in the stock market based on feelings about the name of the company.

Matching - for a lifelong relationship requires cold, hard, logic. What is "intuition"? Or "social skills"? Some women can be logical, but it is more of a fight. Moreover, most Women reject the idea of Game. I can see how they would validate batshit crazy feminine nonsense, but not how they can even begin to relate to men. Game is the Manosphere because men tend to be logical-left.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:19 PM  

"We've discussed with our daughters that their marriage will likely be arranged."

It's funny, because they think this will happen.

Anonymous Noah B. April 29, 2013 10:19 PM  

What other historical examples are there of societies that have allowed women the freedom to choose the conditions of marriage? Other than Europe and the Americas during the last ~120 years, I can't really think of any examples.

I like the idea of arranged marriages, and this approach has been successful across most cultures throughout the history of civilization. Children and young adults tend to be whimsical and do not understand what characteristics they will truly appreciate the most in a husband or wife. Provided that arranged marriages are a cultural norm rather than a legal mandate, they're a good idea.

Anonymous Noah B. April 29, 2013 10:21 PM  

"It raises the question, how can you prove a father's choice of mate is better than a daughter's choice of a mate."

Birth rates. (Math is hard.)

Anonymous Toolbox April 29, 2013 10:27 PM  

While an ilk matching service might seem a good idea at the outset, distance might prove impractical compared to finding matches closer.

@ Nate:
Your plan for your arrangement setup for your daughter resembles somewhat an earlier plan I was thinking, too. In the interest of doing the best you can, you just have to go to bat for her to secure the best you can, match and quality wise. I've had a saying for a few years now: you marry whom you deserve. So, a father has to settle somewhat as it's possible his daughter isn't quite the perfection he thinks she is, either.

I always love it when the detractors come down to the love argument. Love is definitely a choice. The girl can choose to love the husband picked for her or not. It is wonderful that God has created things so she's helped along with the sex aspect of her marriage. Biologically, she's going to be attracted to him due to hormones, etc. I have no fear for this department. I also have no fear that I will end up having better judgment than a 14-20 year old girl.

@ Nate and Ilk:
Age of marriage: that depends upon your view of families/households and organization. Some cultures accept the daughter in law into the larger family and they all live in the same household. This facilitates the proper place for socialism/communism: family/tribe. Interesting how women naturally vote to change society into what she needs to be focusing on, the family/tribe.

Anonymous Josh April 29, 2013 10:28 PM  

God help the world if the Ilk start interbreeding. The resultant 140+ IQ, gun-toting, hard-reasoning spawn might just create a new empire to rival the 18th century British. Now that would be a patriarchy w aspire toward.

I think most of us would settle for a nice little libertarian republic instead of an empire, where we could be left alone.

Anonymous Azimus April 29, 2013 10:28 PM  

In the end it comes down to propagating a way of life. I, for one, am entirely in favor of hands-off, milktoast fathers like Scalzi (presuming he has spawned) lettin his daughters "find themselves" by hopping into bed with a parcel of meth-addicted effeminate hippies because they may have mumbled a few words about love so they could score some tail. Then when they're childless at 40, having had a hysterectomy thanks to the inexorable march of the many STD's festering inside them, and they are broken, withered, bitter, spiritless shells, they can have a nice talk with their doughy, smarmy coward of a father and thank him that he gave her the freedom to stand well clear when she went where her heart led. Sounds like a great dad. A model for liberalism, anyway.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 10:29 PM  

I think the ungamed are assuming the feminist line that women would base the choice on reason -"best interest" instead of super-hamster rationalization. Not unlike many men will take a looker - a '10' even if she is well used and even abusive. Testosterone poisoning is recognized but limited. Estrogen poisoning is both more subtle and deadly.

Women (men too, but are ahead to begin with) make better decisions the more emotionally detached. That will not apply to a mate. They can't even avoid alphas no matter that they are used and dumped. "It's different this time"

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:31 PM  

"Birth rates. (Math is hard.)"

It raises the questions:

...What percent of marriages were arranged 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 years ago. If you don't know, then there is no math to do

...Are lowering birth rates a result of father's no longer arranging marriages? Or from economic changes, technological changes, the advent of easy and effective birth control, the transition from a rural to an urban population or many many other things....Or just because daddy's aren't choosing husbands.

It's funny....Cause it's lunatics talking.

Anonymous Soga April 29, 2013 10:37 PM  

Who Nose obviously doesn't understand that the science behind Game has been done. You know how in Physics, they're after the holy grail of the unified Theory of Everything?

Well, Game is the unified theory of women. And it is based on the research done into female psychology, which means that prescriptions can begin to be made about how to correct declining birth rates.

This RAISES the question, Who Nose.... are you Beezlebub/Tad/A. Man?

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 10:40 PM  

"What other historical examples are there of societies that have allowed women the freedom to choose the conditions of marriage? Other than Europe and the Americas during the last ~120 years, I can't really think of any examples."

There's were a few around, but most where slave societies who served their conquers.

It's really not been 120 years of women free to choose, more like 45 years. Tradition dictated that children still got their parents permission before getting married. While not as good as arranged marriage it was still much more effective than the full on lek mating that we see today.

Blogger tz April 29, 2013 10:41 PM  

@Josh

We are likely to be left alone. The outer world is suicidally insane. The only trick is keeping alive with the embers of civilization and knowledge through the collapse.

Leviathan's death throes are likely to crush many.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 10:45 PM  

"Beezlebub"

Definately not Tad... could be A.Man... most likely Dipshit Dan.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 10:45 PM  

God I miss Cedarford

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:45 PM  

"Well, Game is the unified theory of women. And it is based on the research done into female psychology, which means that prescriptions can begin to be made about how to correct declining birth rates.

This RAISES the question, Who Nose.... are you Beezlebub/Tad/A. Man?"

It's funny you think there is a unified theory of women because it's too stupid and makes us laugh.

My name is John Archer-Beezlebub III.

Anonymous Noah B. April 29, 2013 10:46 PM  

"It's funny....Cause it's lunatics talking."

Given that most arranged marriages that occur today are in Asia and Africa -- why do you hate brown people, you racist scumbag?

Anonymous Red April 29, 2013 10:50 PM  

>>...Are lowering birth rates a result of father's no longer arranging marriages? Or from economic changes, technological changes, the advent of easy and effective birth control, the transition from a rural to an urban population or many many other things....Or just because daddy's aren't choosing husbands.


There's really 2 issues here: Low birth rates and the quality of husbands/wives. Having a father choose improves the quality of husbands/families, but it's freedom for women in general that results in low birth rates. Both are intertwined because when allow daughters to make these kind of choices you are expanding female freedom.

It's official US government policy to promote freedom for women in India to reduce the birthrate. The USSR also experimented with total freedom for women and the resulting decline in fertility caused them to cut back on female freedom.

Anonymous Azimus April 29, 2013 10:52 PM  

Hey Who Nose there are places outside the US. They are called "countries". Are you unfamiliar with the concept? There are things called "facts" that can be "googled" about these so-called "countries.". These "facts" include things like "birthrates" which are usually represented per unit population annually, or per the life expectancy of a woman of that "country". Once you have this info you can go to"wikipedia" and read about what "countries" practice pre-arranged marriages and which don't. Then, when you work really hard for what will probably be many hours fir you, you can establish a "correlation", which can answer your "question."


What WILL they think of next on the information super highway?

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 10:56 PM  

" Having a father choose improves the quality of husbands/families"

This raises the question, how do you determine that father's choice of a husband for his daughter improves the family.

This raises the question, what happens if a daughter doesn't like the chosen husband.

This raises the question, what role do heightened social skills and interpersonal skill have to do with choosing a husband.

Finally, this raises the question, where can I get some of the same dope you are smoking?

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 10:57 PM  

"It's funny you think there is a unified theory of women because it's too stupid and makes us laugh."

says the homosexual.

Anonymous Curlytop April 29, 2013 10:58 PM  

Marrying ages: 18-22 for women, males be at least 4 yrs older.

Think the idea of arranged marriages is abhorrent to women. Ha! Out of my close circle of female friends, 90% of them are quite blunt about it. Our oldest is 13 and we have two families already eying him for their daughters.

Anonymous Curlytop April 29, 2013 10:59 PM  

Mea Culpa! I off-handedly mention Beez a few threads back and perhaps it appears?

Blogger David F. April 29, 2013 11:02 PM  

You are dismissing Jill's point too easily. Fathers are naturally better equipped to judge the worth of young men than any young woman can be, but this ability doesn't depend on their proficiency in logic.

Even a man with no real capacity for logical thought can still be intuitively repelled by a young suitor who reminds him of the shiftless, criminal, or player types he's known. Likewise, if a young man impresses Dad as the sort of of young man he'd like to have as a son, there is a good chance he's a good catch. In any event the father will be harder to fool than a young woman in love.

I'd also like to point out that no logic can govern whether a young woman finds an appropriate suitor attractive or repulsive. Even if your daughter is taking a good chunk of France as a dowry, pressuring her to marry someone she's not attracted to is a recipe for serious trouble, not least for the unfortunate husband.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 11:03 PM  

""It's funny you think there is a unified theory of women because it's too stupid and makes us laugh."

says the homosexual."

I'm laughing at you because you think you are clairvoyant. But you are not. Plus, you are funny.

It raises the question, how do you develop your clairvoyant skill? Are you a mystic too? Can you tell the future? Where will the stock market be n 90 days?

You are a funny man, Nate.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 11:07 PM  

"Even a man with no real capacity for logical thought can still be intuitively repelled by a young suitor who reminds him of the shiftless, criminal, or player types he's known."

This raises the question, what about the young woman who is both possessed of better logic skill and better intuitive skills than her father.

This also raises the question, what if the daughter knows herself better than her father??

Finally, this raises the question, what if you are concerned for the daughters self determination?

Funny person, you.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 11:08 PM  

"It raises the question, how do you develop your clairvoyant skill? Are you a mystic too? Can you tell the future? Where will the stock market be n 90 days?"

Those who took my advice and purchased gold in 2004 because I told them to certainly think so. As for the stock market... the stock market is for idiots.

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 11:09 PM  

"I'm laughing at you because you think you are clairvoyant. But you are not. Plus, you are funny. "

By the way.. you're Beezle. You're a little self loathing fag. We all remember you. We know you're a cocksucker because you told us you were a cocksucker.

Anonymous Noah B. April 29, 2013 11:12 PM  

"Even a man with no real capacity for logical thought can still be intuitively repelled by a young suitor who reminds him of the shiftless, criminal, or player types he's known. Likewise, if a young man impresses Dad as the sort of of young man he'd like to have as a son, there is a good chance he's a good catch. In any event the father will be harder to fool than a young woman in love."

This is why it's important for both families to get to know one another beforehand. You can tell a great deal about someone by meeting their parents.

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 11:13 PM  

"Those who took my advice and purchased gold in 2004 because I told them to certainly think so. As for the stock market... the stock market is for idiots."

What will be the price of Gold on December 2, 2013 Oh Great Nate?

Anonymous Who Nose April 29, 2013 11:14 PM  

"This is why it's important for both families to get to know one another beforehand. You can tell a great deal about someone by meeting their parents."

I agree with this.

And, it raises the question, why are you among the few sane people commenting on this blog?

Blogger Nate April 29, 2013 11:15 PM  

"What will be the price of Gold on December 2, 2013 Oh Great Nate?"

Significantly higher than today. at least 200 bucks an ounce higher.

Anonymous Matthew April 29, 2013 11:27 PM  

This is why it's important for both families to get to know one another beforehand. You can tell a great deal about someone by meeting their parents.

Young men should be given this counsel as well. Had I been given it, and had I taken it to heart, I would have lived a happier life.

Anonymous Pequod April 29, 2013 11:33 PM  

As a guy, I really don't care what my family thinks. I haven't lived within 1000 miles of them since high school. Of course I'd never embarrass them by marrying into a downmarket family.

But I certainly judge a woman by her family. I recall being very disappointed to find my girlfriend's father was some doughy balding guy who would likely never break a 50k salary in his lifetime. And of course one must see how the mother has aged.

Anonymous Matthew April 29, 2013 11:39 PM  

Pequod, how much do you get paid, per comment, on average?

Anonymous Lana April 29, 2013 11:48 PM  

"This raises the question, how do you determine that father's choice of a husband for his daughter improves the family."

Given the context of the post, number of kids produced by the marriage for the family.

"This raises the question, what happens if a daughter doesn't like the chosen husband."

Possible, but irrelevant.

"This raises the question, what role do heightened social skills and interpersonal skill have to do with choosing a husband."

Irrelevant.

"Finally, this raises the question, where can I get some of the same dope you are smoking?"

You could simply stop typing "too funny" on the internet, get down to the serious business of populating the earth, in order to put those of us with these opinions out of business. After all, how many kids do you need to make sure that people who think like you would outnumber people who think like me? The future belongs to those who show up for it. How's that going for ya?

Anonymous Nate's Icon Is Roy Cohn April 30, 2013 12:05 AM  

"I favor a loose form of arranged marriage where the daughter is allowed the illusion of choice by providing her with a number of pre-qualified excellent options that have already been pre-approved by the father."

I nominate you for sadist of the year.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 30, 2013 12:08 AM  

This raises the question, what happens if a daughter doesn't like the chosen husband.

Cause women who choose for themselves never end up not liking the husbands of their choosing.

Shit, I've not liked RLB plenty. What's that got to do with anything. Daughters with fathers who choose their husbands, are daughters who understand liking their husbands 100% of the time is not a feature of marriage. You can very well love, submit to and respect a man you don't like at the moment.

Anonymous Eric April 30, 2013 12:13 AM  

SarahsDaughter

You can very well love, submit to and respect a man you don't like at the moment.

Sounds a lot like VD's statement about "Right now" being put in front of everything a woman says.

Anonymous Meganeura April 30, 2013 12:16 AM  

In my family, until recently, all marriages were arranged, and we were all cousins, even first cousins.
I've seem Jewish families organize themselves in a similar way.

We were a small (less than 30 people) Caboco family-line living in northern Brazil, we all had a similar appearance and a common lore.
Intermarriage with the other Brazilians has erased even the memory of our family-line.

My own cousins look like black Brazilians and I sure as heck won't marry then.
I could show you pictures of how, in just three generations, we went from blue eyed blonde to various shades of brown and very different facial features.
And since nobody looks like each other anymore the family is not even united anymore either. Massive disparities in I.Q. don't help either.
And the beautiful fairy tales my great-grandmother used to tell me when I was a boy are now lost forever, for all humanity.

And since I won't marry in the family, I'll just have to marry a black-eyed Brazilian too, so it looks like that was the end of that.

So yeah, marry carefully if you want to preserve an identity as a family.

Anonymous Lana April 30, 2013 12:18 AM  

"I nominate you for sadist of the year."

But how many kids do you have? How many grandkids? One person. One vote.

Anonymous Paul Durow April 30, 2013 12:28 AM  

First:

"It begs the question (sic)."

"It begs the question (sic)."

"It begs the question (sic)."

And then:

"This raises the question."

"This raises the question."

"This raises the question."

Who is this deranged individual?

Anonymous Johnny Caustic April 30, 2013 12:29 AM  

Thanks, Vox. I have added the paragraph about revolutionary Powerpoint slideshows and groundbreaking HR policies to my Quotes file. I foresee many opportunities to steal your bons mots.

Vox must have royally f#cked up a powerpoint presentation at some point in his past

Kinda redundant here. You coulda just said "Vox must have had a PowerPoint presentation at some point in his past" and the semantic content would be unchanged.

Blogger JCclimber April 30, 2013 12:33 AM  

"Raises the question"

"Begs the question"

I suppose we should just be happy that she is now using the correct terminology.
The format of the argument reveals the lack of intelligence above (at most) 105. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Still, the lack of observation of the way the real world works shows that this is most likely a high school student.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic April 30, 2013 12:49 AM  

Nate asks what do you consider the marrying age?

21 for women, 40 for men.

It gives a man time to establish his career and property and makes it easy to sustain a frame where he is clearly the leader and his wife follows.

(Some men will be fit to lead earlier, but even at 35 I wasn't.)

Anonymous Dez April 30, 2013 1:02 AM  

I was given an example from my father-in-law on how a father should actively work to get his daughter(s) married..

1. He got to know me and my family right off the bat.
2. After an examination period I was "subtly" made aware that his daughter was interested.
3. While dating his daughter, he kept his wife from interfering. This not only spared us a lot of drama, it allowed us to work through our problems quickly.
4. When drama did arise, he'd advise me and gently lead her.
5. He kept us from breeding before we were married.

While it was far from being an arranged marriage, his involvement kept our relationship headed in the right direction. And thanks to him, I was given a wife untouched who knew not a man.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother April 30, 2013 1:05 AM  

We need some data collection here on ilk offspring.

How amongst the ilk have children approaching the marrying age? Also... what do you consider the marrying age?

Personally i think we're putting it off way to long these days.

They should be married around 20 if not sooner... take a couple years to learn to be married and learn to live together in a peaceful home... then they need to start popping out little ones.


Two sons, four and two. Oldest named after Stonewall/Andrew take your pick and my favorite author, the first American novelist. Second one named after TJ or my wife's great-great-great-grandfather.

If I had daughters, which I probably won't, I would definitely be picking their husbands for them. The nose sure does itch when the bead of a ghost ring is tickling it.

Anonymous Emperor of Icecream April 30, 2013 1:24 AM  

It's probably a solecism to post a serious comment in a troll bait thread, but Ima gonna do it anyway.

There isn't a lot of precedent for arranged marriages in Western civ, once you move beyond the upper nobility. Certainly since the transition to modernity (c. 1500 to 1600, depending on who is counting) formal arranged marriages have been rare and most marriages included some courtship or love match elements. To the extent anybody was trying to prod the girl in a particular direction, it was usually the mother. The father would typically just veto potential suitors but let the young people work out who was going to pair off with whom after that.

If you look at demographically successful modern Western subcultures, which is mostly Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, traditional Catholics, etc., its a courtship model, not an arranged marriage model. The difference is that their girls are taught young that marriage is serious business, that the point of dating and such is marriage, and that hooking up and cohabiting are abominations. And the parents don't arrange matters much but they aren't checked out either.

Arranged marriages are a solution to inheritance and family alliance problems, not to demography problems. The highly functional Western traditional cultural package was strong social pressures not to cohabit or slut around coupled with maternal steering of courtship and paternal veto of potential suitors, with actual marriages being concerted by the young people themselves on the basis of courtship and romantic love. It worked pretty damn well. In those subcultures where its still applied, it still does.

Anonymous A Visitor April 30, 2013 1:29 AM  

"It should be kept in mind that a government which has the power to conscript men to die for the security of the nation quite clearly has the power to force women to marry and bear children for the same purpose." When I was in Spain, they ran articles on how the previous administration tried to get women to have children (once married) by enticing them with a couple thousand euros.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 30, 2013 1:36 AM  

You can very well love, submit to and respect a man you don't like at the moment.

Sounds a lot like VD's statement about "Right now" being put in front of everything a woman says.


Of course. A woman not liking her husband is a "right now" scenario, even among wise women. Wise women, however, know this has nothing to do with their marriage covenant.

Interesting to note, however, women who understand what a marriage covenant means are less likely to not like their husbands "right now"/"at the moment."

Blogger BoysMom April 30, 2013 1:46 AM  

As long as it's in a libertarian setting, I see no problem with arranged or semi-arranged (as Nate was describing) marriages. I wouldn't have married someone my father picked, but I wanted a Christian and babies. My father likes my husband fine, but he never would've picked him: he would've picked an atheist who wanted at most one child.
For what it's worth, those of you looking at Ilk intermarriage, my family (maternal line--there is no paternal line) has been breeding for intelligence and longevity for at least four generations--probably longer looking at the genealogy. It works, but we're prone to quarrel. Someone should've added 'Christian' 'even tempered' and 'possesses common sense' to 'smarter than you' and 'will outlive you' when suggesting spousal traits. I'm still hoping one of my boys will be Lazarus Long, you know . . .

Anonymous rho April 30, 2013 2:31 AM  

Nobody has ever had free reign in choosing a mate. The selection process is limited by either formal or accidental arrangements already. The idea that any one Woman can choose any one Man is ridiculous on the face of it--otherwise Justin Bieber would already be hitched to some daffy broad.

The illusion of choice is a powerful forcing mechanism. If you buy into that illusion, you're a chump.

Our cultural elites already practice some version of arranged marriages. They even informally adhere to the conservative cultural preference against divorce. (See Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton.) Stable marriages--even the clearly theatrical appearance thereof--are valued commodities. Advantageous marriages are even more valuable.

If you're uncomfortable with directly choosing your children's spouses, then you can simply force the issue by living, working and sending your children to school with the rich and powerful. It's the same thing, but with plausible deniability.

Anonymous Daybreaker April 30, 2013 2:33 AM  

Meganeura April 30, 2013 12:16 AM... that's heartbreaking.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 2:39 AM  

"How it can be expected for them to pick a decent mate is beyond my kin."

Normally I think pointing out mere typos is lame, but this one is so accidentally hilarious it's too brilliant to pass.

Blogger David F. April 30, 2013 2:44 AM  

@Emperor makes a good point. All this talk of arranged marriages makes it sound like we are European nobility or Venetian merchants building family empires...or Bene Gesserit running an aristocratic breeding program. Courtship with family approval has been the standard for ordinary people in the West for a very long time and worked very well.

The problem we have today is that fathers and families either can't or won't fulfill their responsibilities to guide their daughters, and their daughters don't recognize their own need for guidance.

Anonymous Toby Temple April 30, 2013 2:53 AM  

So we have a new chew toy.

This raises the question: How long until the Dread Ilk is fed up with the new chew toy?

Blogger Markku April 30, 2013 3:12 AM  

-How it can be expected for them to pick a decent mate is beyond my kin.

-That's occidentally hilarious

Blogger Justthisguy April 30, 2013 3:37 AM  

On #2: I think of Longcourt Phyllis in the Heinlein novel, "Beyond This Horizon." She was willing to give up the protection afforded to women and take her chances as an armed citizen, for better or worse.

Anonymous Mudz April 30, 2013 3:39 AM  

I don't believe that laws are the answer to undesirable human behavior, not because they are wrong or evil, but because they are ineffective. Customs and traditions are much more powerful; laws only tend to function if they are reasonably in line with them. Laws don't shape society, they tend to follow it instead.

Agreed.

Also I think it should be noted that a secular state that provides 'equal recognition' to any and all traditional systems cannot be sustained. Obamacare is an example of this sort of thing coming to a head.

Anyone familiar with Daniel's prophecy will understand the analogy it gives for the political landscape today, as opposed to say, Divine Right.

Anonymous VD April 30, 2013 3:40 AM  

This is funny because the writer thinks it's a fact, but it can't be proven. It's funny too because posits no moral quality to the funny claim.

Who Nose is both Tad and A. Man. Bid him adieu.

This RAISES the question, Who Nose.... are you Beezlebub/Tad/A. Man?

I see I'm not the only one who noticed.

Blogger Justthisguy April 30, 2013 3:46 AM  

"because women are, first and foremost, the practical sex." Oh, you betcha. Women, I have noticed, are always careful to make sure that they have roofs over their heads, no matter how silly they seem to be in other ways. It is we romantic guys who end up sleeping in the woods, or, in my case recently, in the back of my truck, with my cat.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 4:02 AM  

"We are likely to be left alone. The outer world is suicidally insane."

Oh no you won't be left alone. Once the non-white world collapses in chaos and poverty, as it must, and the word gets around that a bunch of smart whites have created a small but prosperous republic, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, any way they can.

They'll be tunneling under your floorboards, climbing up out of your sewers, mailing themselves in boxes. Anything to experience the horrors of White Racism again.

by the way, a propos of this thread... when is the Ilk's production of "The Fantasticks" set to open?

Blogger Justthisguy April 30, 2013 4:03 AM  

I think you did right there, Vox. I speak, not as one of the Dread Ilk, but as an aspirant who aspires only to be counted as one of the Mildly Annoying Ilk. Mayhap, with some instruction from my betters, one of these days I might be counted among the Dread Ilk.

Blogger Markku April 30, 2013 4:05 AM  

Pro tip for people who have been smacked for misusing "begs the question": replace that phrase with "raises the question" every time you feel the desire to use it. If you wish to accuse someone of circular reasoning, say "circular reasoning". Just stop using the phrase "begs the question" entirely, because you're not tall enough for this ride.

Markku thanks you in advance.


Brotip: If you say "this is question-begging" instead of "this begs the question", you signal that you are using it the right way.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 4:07 AM  

"Who Nose is both Tad and A. Man."

Was it the nose that tipped you off?

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 4:11 AM  

"If you say "this is question-begging" instead of "this begs the question", you signal that you are using it the right way."

Linguistically I think we should just admit that those horses have left the barn. These days, when people say "this begs the question" 9 times out of 10 they mean "this raises the question". It would be better and much easier to simply come up with a different, clearer-sounding term for the philosophical problem of question-begging, than to keep on continually scolding people for using it the way they are determined to use it.

The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.

Anonymous PR April 30, 2013 4:24 AM  

We decided years ago that we won't allow for the practice of "dating". Courting or arranged marriage is fine. Dating is not.

So Nate, put me down for two homeschooled candidates clinging to their Christianity and guns. A 16 year old girl and a 12 year old boy.

Blogger Markku April 30, 2013 4:46 AM  

Linguistically I think we should just admit that those horses have left the barn. These days, when people say "this begs the question" 9 times out of 10 they mean "this raises the question". It would be better and much easier to simply come up with a different, clearer-sounding term for the philosophical problem of question-begging, than to keep on continually scolding people for using it the way they are determined to use it.

This idea effects a bad affect in me.

Blogger Justthisguy April 30, 2013 4:53 AM  

Oh, and Vox? Please quit pickin' on Jill. She is obviously one of My People trying to Act Normal and Be Good, or she would not even have shown up here. Hey, God made excessively earnest and socially awkward people, too!

Yah, she's a wummun, but if I didn't think she was already taken, I'd look her up. I betcha she prolly plays a wind instrument, and would help me load canister to use against guitarists.













































Blogger Justthisguy April 30, 2013 5:03 AM  

Sorry about the sticky Return key and all the blank lines. It's a cheap keyboard.

Anonymous rho April 30, 2013 6:02 AM  

Who Nose is both Tad and A. Man. Bid him adieu.

Why? Banning him doesn't prevent a return. Why not allow him the dignity of a moniker, and avail yourself of the convenience of a standard to ban?

That's win-win in any book.

Anonymous hardscrabble farmer April 30, 2013 6:31 AM  

So 99% of women would tell their own family to fuck off while simultaneouly making an online payment to Match.com for the exact same result (absent the love and intimate knowledge of family).

Sounds like a typical female choice to me.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden April 30, 2013 6:49 AM  

Arranged marriages huh? Watch Borgia (Canal+). Even within that context, little girls can still be bitches. Then again, maybe it is more due to the fact, that they are illegitimate to begin with, with what will become later -- Papa.

I suppose there is value in parental guidance of marriage partners. However, in the New Testament context, Christians have liberty of conscience. I suppose that goes for all adults, male and female alike. Again, the onus is on the parents, to ensure a child is prepared for adulthood accordingly, to make their own adult decisions, for their own lives.

I continue to watch Caprica. Is it just and proper to blame the parents, to the point of capital judgment and execution, for the sins of their children?

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 7:11 AM  

The problem (one of many) with the father selecting the husband for his daughter, rather than the model of the girl finding her groom on her own and then bringing him home for parental approval (and possible veto) is that the father can only select from the pool of his own social and class acquaintances. This keeps a family orbiting in a static S-E position, or at least increases the likelihood that it will.

FATHER: Cindy, I have chosen your husband for you: David Zuckerberg.
CINDY: He's not available, pa.
FATHER: All right then. I have chosen Ashton Kutcher to be your husband.
CINDY: You can't even get him on the phone, dad.
FATHER: All right then. How about Tommy, the son of my friend Ed down at the garage?
CINDY: You know dad, I've been dating this nice MBA student. Why don't I bring him home for dinner some night?

If a family educates their daughter in the ethos that dating is not for screwing around, but for finding the correct lifelong mate, and she takes this to heart, then letting her select for herself, subject to parental approval (fatherly authority, motherly wise advice -- oh, and with fatherly authority subjected of course to backstage wifely wisdom, which will happen whether Dad realizes it or not) is a much more effective way to go.

As has been said above, culture is far stronger than law. And in this present society, such culture is attainable on a case-by-case basis, whereas among the native-born populace, the only way you'll actually get mass arranged marriages would be through force of a law so draconian, you wouldn't want to live in that society anyway, trust me. In fact, in a society with that level of force of law, you guys would be the first people breaking out the guns and shooting back at it.


Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 7:12 AM  

Women choosing their own mate is the reason for an unsustainable society? One of the catalysts or the main catalyst? What is your metric for proving this?

Would society have been better off if Space Bunny's parents chose a fat old billionaire for her mate instead of you.

Anonymous Hermit April 30, 2013 7:16 AM  

Nate: I'd be willing to willing to throw my kids into the co-op. They've got at least 10 years until they're ready though.

Blogger Doom April 30, 2013 8:08 AM  

Fathers, and mothers, should also tell their daughters not to vote. Give them a gun, sure, but suggest they do the right thing and not vote. One is a right, the other is the equivalent of electoral quantitative easing.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2013 8:14 AM  

"This keeps a family orbiting in a static S-E position, or at least increases the likelihood that it will."

The amusing thing here is... you seem to think inter-social-class marriage is more important that mere replacement reproduction.

Anonymous CLK April 30, 2013 8:16 AM  

"It begs the question: Who ought to choose their spouses?"

Scientists and scientific tests -- at the age of 12 all men and women should be give a shot that suppresses reproduction. At age 22 a series of tests covering intelligence, genetics etc will be given, potential mates will be matched up via computer and given the antidote shot...

But maybe this has been tried before ..

Anonymous whatever April 30, 2013 8:49 AM  

Wise Retard Sage says:

The amusing thing here is... you seem to think inter-social-class marriage is more important that mere replacement reproduction.


The interesting thing is you imagine, in your vivid fantasy world, that replacement reproduction rate is HARD. Every primitive hell-hole in the world pulls that off, and better than any nation in Europe.

Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 9:01 AM  

We have a fair share of societies where the fathers decide who their daughters should marry, asking if they have a sustainable society is null, they have been doing so for centuries, asking if they have civilized society is more to the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ob_7HV1v2I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJnWEP1SeTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlaBOIe5GSs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsExiAbCk1A

Blogger Nate April 30, 2013 9:01 AM  

"The interesting thing is you imagine, in your vivid fantasy world, that replacement reproduction rate is HARD. Every primitive hell-hole in the world pulls that off, and better than any nation in Europe."

No actually. I don't think its hard. I think its incredibly easy. In fact I think you need to take herculean efforts to make it not happen.

Unfortunately the US and Europe have done exactly that.

Now bitch I asked you two direct questions. Answer them.

Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 9:05 AM  

So I guess there is the proof for Vox's original point, but maybe my disagreement should be more along the lines of whether a society deserves to be sustained with such a tradition in place.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2013 9:15 AM  

"So I guess there is the proof for Vox's original point, but maybe my disagreement should be more along the lines of whether a society deserves to be sustained with such a tradition in place."

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Towler April 30, 2013 9:15 AM  

There is no reason to believe that a marriage arranged by a father of the bride will lead to more children.

Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 9:16 AM  

...by the way I was getting a lap dance once and to my surprise the stripper slipped her nipple between my lips. Even though she was gyrating on my erect penis it seemed oddly forward and presumptive. After she left I thought "Jesus, how many mouths has her nipple been in today".

Should I get tested for an STD?

Anonymous RedJack April 30, 2013 9:18 AM  

whatever April 29, 2013 9:17 PM I will now close the argument with the one question every... person... here dares not ask. Though it is the problem most pressing.

Why do you believe the father will have the best interests of his daughter at heart?

We know why the daughter will at least try to have her best interests at heart. But the father? WHY.


How many early 20's women have you seen that have their "best intrests" at heart? Most want to ride the cock around and change a "bad boy" to a "good man". For that matter, most boys that age these days are little more than bigger adolescents.

My parents were very clear on who they didn't want me to marry. My bride was one of the few that my Father said "she is good". Looking back, he knew a lot more than I did about what to be wary of.

Anonymous Catan April 30, 2013 9:22 AM  

"So I guess there is the proof for Vox's original point, but maybe my disagreement should be more along the lines of whether a society deserves to be sustained with such a tradition in place."

So you would rather society fall into decay, squalor, and misery rather than a father assist and veto possible suitors for his daughter?

This is a perfect example of why perfectionism is a mental disease, it leads to focus on exceptions and whether something is perfect enough to deserve to survive, rather than what works best in a flawed, fallen world.

Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 9:22 AM  

Deserve's got nothing to do with it
It most certainly does. If a society can be sustained by American Idol and Survivor does it deserve to go on? Will this same society of nitwits fair any better if the fathers choose who their daughters marry?

Anonymous RedJack April 30, 2013 9:25 AM  

Log April 29, 2013 9:39 PM By the by, that also happens to kill Vox's "love is a choice" notion.


Love is a choice. When we did our pre Cana stuff (marriage prep in the Lincoln, NE diocese) that was something the priest hammered into to us all the time. Love is a choice. If you are chasing the "high", it will lead you into all sorts of short term relationships. I love my bride, we fit the best together, and we both choose to love each other every day no matter how damn annoying we are to each other. It is a choice, and something we work on.

Anonymous jay c April 30, 2013 9:27 AM  

We have a fair share of societies where the fathers decide who their daughters should marry, asking if they have a sustainable society is null, they have been doing so for centuries, asking if they have civilized society is more to the point.

I'll take uncivilized over extinct any day.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2013 9:27 AM  

"There is no reason to believe that a marriage arranged by a father of the bride will lead to more children. "

/facepalm

No reason other than observable reality and 5000 years of history.

Blogger Bogey April 30, 2013 9:27 AM  

So you would rather society fall into decay, squalor, and misery rather than a father assist and veto possible suitors for his daughter?

This is a perfect example of why perfectionism is a mental disease, it leads to focus on exceptions and whether something is perfect enough to deserve to survive, rather than what works best in a flawed, fallen world.


Those aren't exceptions. It can't work in a flawed and fallen world. This society has accepted gay marriage (at least according to polling data). In your fantasy world how long will it be before we have to accept, Dad decided that he is the only fitting suitor for his daughter?

Anonymous jay c April 30, 2013 9:29 AM  

If a society can be sustained by American Idol and Survivor does it deserve to go on?

It cannot and it does not.

Will this same society of nitwits fair any better if the fathers choose who their daughters marry?

Yes, because that would go a long way toward getting rid of American Idol and Survivor. Fathers choosing spouses for their children is a proven ingredient of sustainability. Reality TV is a proven ingredient of degradation.

The real question is, do you want a society/people/culture that lasts or one that doesn't?

Anonymous Catan April 30, 2013 9:30 AM  

Also, note how the naysayers here are arguing their side. They require peer-reviewed scientific papers posted in Nature Magazine for anything opposing their points, but they require absolutely no proof for an assumption of equality between the daughters' judgment and the father's judgment. They simply assume that both have equal judgment without any proof whatsoever until proven otherwise.

This is why leftism is intellectually bankrupt. There is absolutely no a priori evidence that life and reality has any basis in equality or fairness, yet they require no proof whatsoever to assume it.

Tell you what, naysayers, apply the same rigorous standard of proof to your own assumptions of equality as you ascribe to our opinions.

Anonymous jay c April 30, 2013 9:31 AM  

This society has accepted gay marriage (at least according to polling data). In your fantasy world how long will it be before we have to accept, Dad decided that he is the only fitting suitor for his daughter?

If daddies pick their daughters' husbands, gay marriage probably won't be accepted for long.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 30, 2013 9:31 AM  

If the goal is simply to increase reproductive rates, then perhaps it would be more efficacious if, rather than telling their daughters WHO they will marry, they told them WHEN they will marry. (i.e. 17 or 18... 20, max, but only with a very good excuse.)

Blogger Nate April 30, 2013 9:32 AM  

'It most certainly does.'

Mate if it did... then cannible tribes would've failed. Sparta damned sure would've failed.

They didn't.

Ya know why?

Because the future belongs to those who show up for it.

Anonymous Catan April 30, 2013 9:33 AM  

"In your fantasy world how long will it be before we have to accept, Dad decided that he is the only fitting suitor for his daughter?"

Demonstrate scientific proof that you can show to us to prove your contention that a younger daughter has just as much capability of choosing a mate as an older, wiser father.

Merely stating that fathers are not perfect is not enough, you have to show us that probability wise, daughters are just as likely to select a good mate as their fathers. Show your work.

Anonymous jay c April 30, 2013 9:34 AM  

...and especially not if fathers pick their son's wives too. Gay marriages don't produce children, by definition. So that problem would essentially go away in a single generation.

Anonymous jay c April 30, 2013 9:37 AM  

It sounds like Bogey is claiming one of two things:

1. He (Is he a he?) is an incestuous pedophile who would not be able to resist marrying his own daughter if such was allowed.
2. He thinks he is a special snowflake who is smarter, wiser, and more disciplined than every other man on the planet.

Those are both are perennial liberal flaws.

1 – 200 of 256 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts