Dec 142013

Here’s some shaming language that we see semi-regularly:

Mule, all Driscoll is asking is that young men learn a trade, put down the porn, and find a girl to marry–what responsible men have done since Creation, really. If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.

Or, put in terms the actuaries might use for us, if you don’t marry and father some children, good luck having someone to change your bedpan when you’re too old to work and Medicare and Social Security have collapsed. Yes, getting married risks divorce in the next decade. Not getting married risks dying in misery a few more decades hence.

Choose wisely.

Shaming language about not having children and no one to take care of you when your old isn’t quite covered by the Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics so it needs an entry I’m calling code bronze.

Threat of No Legacy (Code Bronze)

Discussion: Because marriage has turned into an anti-male institution, many men have knowingly or unknowing decided to go their own way and avoid marriage.  In most cases, this will correspond with never having children.  The (unmarried and childless) target is threatened with a calamity that will befall them when they are older due to their lack of marriage and children.  Examples:

  • While there’s a risk of divorce in getting married in the next decade, there’s a risk of dying in misery with no one to change your bedpan when you’re elderly.
  • You will be trapped in a nursing home when you are older with no one to visit you.
  • You will die alone.
  • There will be no one to remember you after you are dead.
  • Your family will die out with you.

Response: There are two issues here, what happens before death and what happens after death.  After death a man is not going to be around to care about if he has children or if anyone remembers him.  Also, if a man wants to be remembered, he does not need children to accomplish that.  Before death, the issue is one of frailty and long term care, not “dying alone”.  This shaming language assumes that children will be caregivers for their elderly parents.  There is no guarantee of this.  In rare cases, children may die before their parents.  It’s likely that children will dump their parents into a nursing home instead of providing elderly care themselves.  Women may try to alienate children from their fathers, so men with children could easily be in the same situation as childless men.  A man who falls victim to this type of shaming language is more likely to make a bad marriage decision like marrying a single mother.  In this case, the children aren’t his and are likely to not care about long term care of an elderly man with who not related to them.  Having children is not a guarantee of anything, and it’s more likely that a man will end up in a situation of getting divorced and having no one to “change his bedpan”.

  15 Responses to “Code Bronze”

  1. So the “Man up!”, “You’re not a man unless you do what I tell you to do!” rants are not getting the job done for the SoCons, so they’re changing course, appealing to a man’s fear?, self-interest?, probably a combination. Sometimes you’ve got to use a carrot, other times a stick to get a mule in the harness and I’m guessing we’ll see all kinds of different messages in the coming decade, only more and more strident.

    Driscoll and his kind used to piss me off, but now I think if you’re stupid enough to lay out the course of your life by listening to fools, instead of choosing your own course, it’s your destiny to be society’s bitch – kind of like if you’re dumb enough to email your banking info to a Nigerian prince in return for a promise of 10 million once he collects his inheritance, well, you deserve what you get.

    Someone tell Driscoll, that if you stayed single, earned, saved & invested for 30 years you could retire when you’re 50, move to the Philippines, South America or Thailand, etc… bang up a couple of twins, have a bunch of kids by them or just bang hookers until you stroke out… your call. The only people who would not benefit if you chose this course would be American women and their lackeys on both sides of the political and social spectrum who have a vested interest in you slaving for them your entire working life.

  2. I dont get this. Why is it that females would degrade themselfs but still say they want a guy who respect them. This is like a on going cycle they still preech it is ridiculous.

  3. I think there are two separate things here. The threat of leaving no legacy is separate from the threat that society will collapse, that not manning-up will create a demographic “bomb” like in Japan. I like “Code Bronze” for the dea of having a bronze statue commemorate yourself. Not sure what the “apocalyptic post-baby scenario” colour should be.

    • There definitely needs to be another category for the “demographic bomb” aspect of shaming language. (Code Bronze only deals with the personal aspect.) I’m think that is really part of shaming language centered around “duty to society” which would include failing to generate sufficient tax revenue for medicare/social security or just in general. Since it’s related to socalism and in many countries the symbol for socialism is the socialist rose (or carnation), then it should be code rose or code carnation.

      • Well, “Man up and do your duty to society!” has never been an exclusively socialist thing. Go google some WWI war posters: King and Country and all that. It seems everything people in the manosphere don’t like, they blame on “socialism”. As if being a serf living under a king was any better.

        As I think about it, I’m coming around to the notion that they (family legacy/duty to society) are the same thing. Consider societies where extended family is important. There is a real pressure on both men and women to pump out the text generation, both to continue the family name and so that there’ll be someone to earn the money when you get senile.

        I suppose one is an appeal to duty, the other an appeal to self-interest. And therein lies the difference.

  4. A great retort:

    Well, then I guess we’ll see if you and your feminist twat cohorts have the balls to euthanize me. Either you take care of me when I’m old, or you have to get your hands dirty.

    Either way, I win!

    That should shut them up for a couple minutes.

  5. Asking for the mass murder of men as the “nuclear option” doesn’t seem like smart policy when talking to feminists. They already want to do it.

    • That’s true, Josh. Beyond feminists wanting to murder men (which they do), a lot of men who have gone their own way/opted out will have significant retirement assets. With no heirs to claim them, said retirement assets will go to the state and be under the de facto control of feminists. Feminists have multiple reasons to want to euthanize elderly men.

  6. I’m not worried about the feminist fantasy of ‘male extermination’ as a nuclear option. If things get bad enough that they’re coming to exterminate men like rats there’s going to be a nasty blow back. Let’s say they push forth some legislation that 40 million men are going to be put down, their assets confiscated, for the children of course.

    Since they’re already dead, why not go out guns blazing? Even if only 10% decide to do so, though I believe it will be closer to 100%, think of the chaos, like the L.A. riots. Cities set to the torch with hundreds of millions in losses, those perceived to be the enemy targeted, it would be a return to the jungle. Now let’s say they think they’re clever, and only decided to put down only 2 million old men a year, those who couldn’t fight back, in order to avoid this nasty blow back. Would you allow them to load your father/grandfather in a cattle car? I would not, and I bet I’m not the only one. Same outcome.

    When men lose their marbles, as in the case of being targeted for extermination, they go out hard. It’s things like this, on a grand scale, that wake the hard core feminists in a cold sweat.

    • While I agree that things will never get to the point of mass euthanasia of (elderly) men, feminists would never have an explicit policy of euthanisation of men. It would be many individual decisions made by the proverbial death panels.

      • feminists would never have an explicit policy of euthanisation of men.

        I agree, there would always be an element of plausible deniability. A more likely policy is not-so-benign neglect. But old women would end up suffering far more than men due to their longer lifespans and greater societal dependence.

        • In the UK they called it the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway’. The person designated for death was sedated, starved and not given any water to drink and surprisingly the died quite quickly.

  7. I won’t deny that health care neglect where men are concerned would be the likely outcome if the ACA comes about ( it’s a disaster so far and millions will have lost their insurance and have to pay hundreds more if they want new coverage right around election time, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Dems take a beating since they were the only party that lobbied for the ACA ) so hopefully you’ve made a decent living so that instead of a vacation to Italy, you take a trip to another country as a medical tourist. Worth googling.

  8. my uncle learned a trade, got married, and fathered some children. he took his life during his divorce.

    “If that’s too much, you’ve just made Driscoll’s point.”

    I don’t see any point at all.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: