No one should be turning to the neo-Nazi online tabloid The Daily Stormer for dating advice, but on the off chance that you are, I have to warn you that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I mean, they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to pretty much everything, but in this case their ignorance involves what actually went on in the supposed 1950s cultural paradise they want to return us to, forcibly if necessary.
In a post with the sarcastic title “Dating Advice: The Key to Good Relationships is Cheating on Your Boyfriends,” regular Daily Stormer contributor “Zeiger” takes aim at a “fat Paki skag” dating expert who has the temerity to argue that women searching for “the One” should date a bunch of guys casually before committing to one of them.
I know, shocking.
Well, it is to Zeiger.
Not so long ago, women didn’t feel like they needed dating advice. After all, they just had to stand around somewhere until a man came to them and took care of everything for them.
All they had to worry about was serving him beer and cooking his food right so he didn’t dump their ungrateful asses.
Zeiger illustrates this point with a magazine illustration from the 1950s depicting happy teenage girls learning to bake a cake, so it’s pretty clear what romanticized past Zeiger is harking back to.
Alas, we have fallen so far from this imaginary paradise!
But in the era of NUMALE faggots and Jew feminism, women are confused. They think it’s somehow their job to understand relationships. This is already a completely insane concept.
But it gets worse.
These days, they’re getting their relationship advice from insane Paki sluts.
The “Paki slut” in question is a “relationship coach” named Sami Wunder who was recently featured in the British tabloid The Express. Despite Zeiger’s headline, Wunder does not actually suggest that women cheat on their boyfriends. Rather, she recommends that women looking for a husband date multiple men, non-exclusively, holding off on serious committment until one of them pops the question.
Whatever you think of this advice, it’s hardly “cheating” to date more than one person when you’re not in an exclusive relationship, presuming everyone is on the up and up on this.
Zeiger is outraged by the very idea.
I guarantee that no real man would “put a ring” on the finger of some hoe who cheated on him with a bunch of other guys. A “man” so pussy-whipped would more appropriately be called a “humanoid slug.” …
What this shows is the urgent need women have for stable, healthy relationships. And that is something that can only be provided by WHITE SHARIA – not fat Paki whore dating advice.
Zeiger’s anger here seems to stem from the same mix of entitlement and insecurity that drives the alt-right obsession with “cucks” and “cucking.” These are men who, on some level, feel entitled to any attractive woman who wanders into their field of vision, and feel betrayed — even “cucked” — when any of these women date or marry or just have sex with some guy other than them.
But we’re not just entitlement we’re dealing with here. More than a few alt-rightist dudes — and manosphere dudes generally — fetishize nubile young virgins, not just because they’re creepy dudes who are way too into women and girls far too young for them, but because virgins have no way to compare their sexual prowess with other men. Many manosphere dudes are quite open about this anxiety, complaining that women who’ve been with more than one guy will endlessly compare them with their earlier partners.
These are the same guys who go around boasting about what “alphas” they are.
But there’s another giant irony in Zeiger’s piece: dating in the 1950s, at least at the start of the decade, looked a lot more like Wunder’s world than Zeigers in some crucial respects.
In the 40s and early 50s, teenagers were encouraged to “play the field,” casually dating an assortment of not-quite-steady partners rather than committing to a single person.
It wasn’t until later in the decade that teens began to shift en masse to the more familiar (to us, that is) strategy of “going steady.” And far from welcoming this new monogamy, many parents were horrified. Magazines at the time were filled with alarming articles on the supposedly grave dangers of going steady.
Here’s one from 1960 warning teens that going steady might be “too dangerous” for them.
Here’s one from 1957 examining the potential “immorality” of going steady.
And here’s a graphic from a pamphlet or magazine article from the era wondering when it was “too early” for teens to go steady.
And parents actually had some legitimate reasons to worry. On the one hand, they worried that teens who “went steady” without dating around first would settle down with the first person of the opposite sex who was nice to them, not realizing they could have done better.
On the other hand, they worried that teens who “went steady” would also end up going further sexually — which could lead, as sex often does, to pregnancy and too-early marriage. Indeed, the age of first marriage dropped precipitously in the 1950s as more teens married, helping to contribute to the spiraling divorce rates of the 1960s and 1970s as these too-hasty marriages fell apart.
It was kind of a screwed-up decade; happily, the sexual revolution of the 1960s convinced a hefty chunk of Americans young and old that 1) sex isn’t the end of the world and 2) it isn’t always such a great idea for teens to settle down forever with the very first person they have sex with.
The weird thing is that the 1950s parents, for all their faults, were more interested in girls and young women having choices than are the alt-rightists of today.
Parents in the 1950s worried that their daughters would end up getting too seriously involved with the wrong guys because they had no good basis for comparison.
Alt-rightists and manosphere dudes today are apparently afraid that no women will settle for them if they realize there are other men out there who aren’t, you know, reactionary racists who think women shouldn’t really be allowed to make their own decisions about anything.
I’m thinking they’re probably right to worry about this. And I’m glad.
Sadly, there is people for which working hard isn’t even necessary. Which is particulary painful for the one who feel they did not get their reward from working hard.
I second Valentine’s suggestion to become a sailor. I work on a long distance ferry doing a 2 week on, 2 week off schedule. I enjoy my job, and it allows me to spend my time off traveling and painting.
Entry level jobs pay well, and you can work your way up. Several Captains and Chief engineers here started off washing dishes.
Our crew is usually 1/3 to 1/2 women, but most of them work as Stewards. We haven’t had a female captain yet, but I should get a position in the next year or two.
@ lone galtian
If i am commenting on WHTM, then usually i am at sea ? at home, i have no time
@Auntie kris
Where is your ferry? Right now i am in new Zealand. Later we go to America.
@Valentine
Alaska
New Zealand is lovely. I cruised there while in school but didn’t get to see much other than the port.
Rhuu said
I wish Husbeast would understand this! I like to design and make jewelry which Husbeast thinks I should sell. I also have carpal tunnel in both hands, so I don’t do it a whole lot. Besides, I want to make what I want to make, not what trends or fashion dictate. I also don’t want to do craft fairs or shows or tend a webstore; I just want to make some earrings and bracelets. *sigh*
@auntie kris
I have never been in alaska, only in philadelphia and charleston in USA.
I dont know if my company trades there.
I think new zealand is paradise. If i would leave my home to live it would be there. Although, quite expensive. I also didnt get to see very many things. Only supermarket, mall or just walking in the city. I have been in aukland for a day when i joined a ship. I went in the aquarium there and also up this tower that they have. $28 to go up and then $10 if you want to buy tea! Also someone thought i was german.
One strange thing i notice this time in new zealand is many people in shorts and flip flops. Some women with very short shorts. For me i thought it was already cold, i was in jacket and jeans and still little bit cold. Is this a normal thing in new zealand?
I had one day in Auckland, so I spent it at the glow worm caves just north of the city. It was awesome.
I visited in mid winter so I didn’t notice any shorts. 2 of our terminal agents wear short while they’re tying the ship up in the snow, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
A kiwi friend in grad school wore shorts year-round in Pittsburgh. I think they’re probably half-sheep, explains their cold tolerance.
(Then again, there was also one from Hong Kong who did the same. Might have been the Pittsburgh water.)
If you dated a teenage girl in the 1940’s or 1950’s, her parents would very closely scrutinize everything about you. You’d have to get away from her if they thought you were a creep or irresponsible (being a Nazi or frequenting PUA fora would probably also disqualify you).
Most states had statutory rape laws by the 1950’s also, or at least you could be prosecuted if a minor’s parents complained. Hell, even in the nineteenth century a grown man marrying a 14 or 15 year-old girl was frowned upon. Not exactly a PUA reactionary paradise.
These guys have no idea what life was actually like in nineteen-wankety-three.
I remember a “Brady Bunch” episode in the 70s where Mike and Carol were so alarmed about Marcia “going steady” with Harvey Klinger, they sat both of them down for a serious talk about his intentions for marriage and supporting Marcia with a job. It had the intended effect of freaking them out and cooling off the romance. By the end of the episode Marcia was back to casually dating around (she’d gone through Danny, Alan, and Lester after dumping Harvey), all was well again, and nary a “cuck” was heard.
The majority of the high school romances I saw (including mine, also including the ones that took place entirely inside my head) had the life span of mayflies. People would start dating one day and be broken up by the following week. Sometimes the timespan was measured in class periods. There were maybe one or two committed couples that dated each other exclusively all the way through high school. In college the average relationship lifespan was months to years rather than weeks to months, but again, very few of my peers committed to a single life mate early on.
Even my cousin, who is married to her preschool sweetheart, dated other boys in between.
Women crave “healthy” relationships so much, we need a set of brutal, repressive laws to force us to accept them. It’s just like our urgent need for stable, healthy, radioactive sewage. Calling it healthy makes it so!
@numerobis:
You are, of course, right! I’m actually in Toronto, as well.
I know a bunch of grads just go hired went out to Vancouver, and I was hearing rumblings that was where a lot of people were moving, to find a job.
So there are still 2D jobs in Tarana, but who knows?
(I love meeting others who work in ‘the industry’ on random websites. H’lo!)
@all the math talk: You’re making me want to sign up for khan academy. Maybe I can learn all this stuff, now.
I went to high school in the 2000’s, and you weren’t considered to be in a relationship unless you were “serious.” There wasn’t really much casual dating as in The Brady Bunch or other high school sitcoms, or at least none I was aware of.
It seems like casual dating died off in the 1980’s or 1990’s, when more people started going to college and parents were more concerned that it could lead to “going steady” or early marriage (our parents grew up when people married early and divorce rates were high).
@Axecalibur
The world’s rich (not just our American rich) don’t care about us. They actively rob and control us if not kill us. They’re the true enemy of most people in the world. They should die for their crimes against humanity.
@Ouroboros13
That’s not for you or us to decide. That’s up to the legal system and the people who craft the laws for said legal system. Plus comments policy of not wishing death upon others. Protest, call your constituents and vote and signal boost, do those things which count as peaceful if you want to help everyone else make a change so these people are no longer capable of exploiting people like they always have. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why you’d hate them, fuck just a few days ago people were celebrating at the fact that millions would die uninsured. Still doesn’t change the fact that we shouldn’t do things like tar and feather them before sending them to meet a firing squad.
Do you think we’re not mad or vengeful enough of the countless things that are happening to us or something/
@ History Nerd
Same time period for me, and yeah, same experience here. The only time I ever saw multiple-partner dating was in Archie comics, which always confused the hell out of me.
So yeah, thanks David for the historical lesson clearing that up for me. It’s probably one of the aspects of those comics not updated since the 40’s.
@Ouroboros13
Yes. Read the comments policy. No threats or wishing that something bad would happen to people. It doesn’t help anyone. It’s up to the legal system if someone deserves to die or not (I’m not really a death penalty fan).
@Ouroboros
Who the fuck is this ‘we’ and ‘us’ you keep invoking? Cos, I’d rather not be dragged into your poorly concealed revenge/power fantasy, thanks
My true enemy at the moment is ignorant, impulsive, violent, angry, bigoted white people regardless of how much money they make. Differing priorities methinks…
Keep in mind, going back to your previous post, the crime that prompted this latest round of ‘who does Ouroboros want dead, and who’s acceptable collateral?’ was inheriting money. Inheriting money (or maybe just a lotta money?) is grounds for execution. By torture. Their ‘crimes against humanity’ can only be rectified by agonizing, inhumane murder, but the ones you salivate over in your head are just fine
Jackass
Khan Academy really is fantastic. I’m at 57% completion on Math. I just have to get one more skill from level 2 to mastered and then I’m done with Grade 8. They have other subjects too now, like science and art history.
David Futrelle,
Maybe you should also point to the idiots at the Daily Stormer that many of the parents of the white girls in the 1950s who they romanticize, fought in World War 2 or at least did everything they could on the home front to help the war effort, which included, not only helping the fight against imperial Japan, and fascist Italy, but Nazi Germany. While on average white 1950s moms and dads would usually be more racist, and more likely to support segregation than today, especially if they lived in the south, I have a feeling that most of them would still not approve of their daughters dating a Nazi, especially if they risked their lives fighting against Nazis to liberate Europe.
Suck it Zeiger!
When Marxists talk about the bourgeoisie, they’re not talking about all “rich people.” They’re talking about people who make exploitative profits from someone else’s labor. The problem is that workers are not paid fairly for what their labor produces, and the problem is ultimately with the system, not individual people.
@history nerd
Not just not paied fairly, workers should own equal share of the organisation for which they work. Then there is no way they can be exploited. Bourgeois would be the owners of workplaces – so can be middle class if.business is small and also not rich. But still with power over people, which would be wrong in eyes of a Marxist. Power to the people, workers own production etc etc.
@Axecalibur, when I speak of “the rich” I speak of the so-called 1%; the minority of business heads of the largest corporations, Wall Street lawyers, big banks, the people who partially own the prison industrial complex etc. In other words, the “masters of mankind” as it were. Two examples of their more known crimes include the “war on drugs” to sabotage apart far leftists and purposefully break apart black families and communities to keep a shattered underclass from taking action and revolting. Another is how they suck out money from services as basic as healthcare by cutting tax breaks from themselves. This is not occult knowledge.
By “us”, I mean everyone else or, in Internet speak, plebs. It doesn’t take a take a Marxist to figure that there is a class war (if you call it a war, more like a struggle) happening, and “we” all are getting shafted. There is a massive elephant in the room and millions of people, even those with advanced degrees, struggling to find jobs is one relatively trivial part of the problem.
CleverForAGirl
Me too. It’s absolute truth.
(I also spent 30 years working in taxation – though, in the end, that’s more about legislation and logic, the numbers are just the colours used to paint the real picture. It’s only if you’re a bookkeeper or tax preparer that your main focus would be the numbers themselves.)
Back to the topic, maths. For anyone who feels incapable, or is raising children and feels a bit overwhelmed about how to help them learn, there’s a fabulous book which is really easy to read and, miracle of miracles, doesn’t expect you to do any maths. It’s John Mighton’s The Myth of Ability.
In value for money terms, it’s best to get an online or 2nd hand copy because more than half of the book is devoted to telling people how to set up the kind of tutoring-coaching network that he promotes as a consequence of his serendipity-induced experiences* in tutoring himself. (Interestingly, one requirement is that tutors must be parents who aren’t fluent in maths themselves.) Very few people actually want to do that, but the reassurance from the first few chapters is priceless.
*The serendipity arose from a misunderstanding. The school sent him a group of learning disabled students rather than the normal-to-gifted group he had in mind. Having one student in tears after the session was a revelation. She was afraid she’d never be back – it was the first time in her life anyone had ever told her that she was “clever” for doing something.
@Ouroboros13
I fail to see how millions being unable to feed and house themselves is a relatively trivial problem. Plus didn’t you pull a stunt like this when election night happened? What made you think people here would be more receptive to your bloodthirsty rants?
You do know that by acting like this you’re giving ammo for them to demonize anyone trying to change things for the betterment of common folk right?
@Ouroboros
Good to know, I suppose. Nobody asked, but OK
Yeah, I don’t wanna see you bringing up black communities. Don’t think I forgot you inviting violent trump supporters to ‘the hood’ to start a race war. I’ve got a long memory for that kinda shit. And I really don’t need any of this splained to me either
True, nor does it matter. Whatever the amorphous ‘rich’ did, we. Should. Not. Torture. People. To. Death! Is this legit difficult? Am I screaming into the void here?
With comrades like you…
Ah! So, it was an elephant? This whole time, I thought I was yelling at a brick wall (points for those who get the reference)
And yet, the primacy of class struggle remains axiomatic. Funny that…
ETA @Oogly
Sorta ninjad on the post election bloodthirst 🙂