Dangerfield’s Syndrome

     Forgive me, Gentle Reader. It’s very early, I’ve been reading some disturbing stuff, and it has me in a foul mood. Two tweets in particular ignited the urge to blather about something that will offend at least half the human race.

     For those who may not have noticed – the Web does conceal a lot about those who rant here – I’m a man. Male, that is. A Y-chromosome bearer. Therefore, I share in the common burdens of the male half of my species. I try not to dwell on them; it’s not good for any of us. But the consciousness of some of those burdens can be difficult to suppress.

     Have a second look at the title of this piece. (For the moment, just the menfolk. The ladies will get their turn.) Know what I’m talking about now?

     The old saying that familiarity breeds contempt has a special application to male-female relations. Familiarity is rooted in the word family. Families of the traditional sort – one man, one woman, and some number of minor children, dogs, cats, and their appurtenances – don’t stay together for as long as they once did. If you’ve noticed that and wondered how to redress it, you’re not alone.

     Part of the reason is burgeoning contempt, especially hers toward him.

     Even at its most obvious, that can be puzzling. Why should she feel contempt for him? She married him, didn’t she? She claimed to love him, back then; has her love lapsed? If so, why?

     Remember the old slogan that love is the answer? We heard it a lot more often a few decades back. It was wrong then. It’s still wrong today. It’s especially wrong when applied to male-female relations, especially those of the (previously) intimate sort. The error inheres in a single word.

     Bide a moment while I fetch more coffee.

* * *

     Have a look at a particularly striking tweet:

"Only women, children and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provides something." - Chris Rock

Changing this dynamic should be at the top of the priority list.

— Lisa Britton (@LisaBritton) December 30, 2025

     That was a stunner. It points to a truth that virtually no one is willing to face squarely. In part, that’s because there’s a misdirector in it. Once again, the misdirector consists of a single word.

     Have you found that word yet? No? Well, as it’s my job to illuminate things that elude other people, I shall tell you forthwith.

     The word is love.

     Miss Britton’s statement is both admirable and factually impeccable. However, the underlying disease isn’t a failure of love. For all the air time it gets, love isn’t a primary emotion. It’s a resultant that's made possible by other factors.

     Primary among those factors is respect.

     Many a relationship between a man and a woman is actually devoid of love. Her love of him, that is. She needn’t feel love to bind herself to him. She does need to acknowledge and respect his ability to protect her and provide for her. Say what you will about “modern women” and the contemporary independence thereof; she would never tie herself to him if he didn’t seem equal to the protect/provide role.

     There’s a lot of talk about how today’s women are all determined to hold out for a modern prince: tall, handsome, self-assured, chivalrous, and with at least a six-figure income. There’s a lot of truth in that. The expectation may be unreasonable, but a lot of women hold it even so. They’ve been told that he’s what they deserve.

     Young women, that is. After about age 30, their standards start to slip. In part that’s because of the “biological clock;” in other part, it’s because they own mirrors. Reality has banged on their doors for long enough to get their attention. Men they’d have dismissed a decade earlier start to look good; good enough for a trial run, at least.

     The complementarity of the sexes is hardwired into us. Women yearn for protectors and providers. Men are designed for the role, and seek to fulfill it. Eventually those urges overcome the propaganda. The desire to see oneself as deserving of a prince or a princess gives way before their power.

     If you’ve been wondering why we bear so many fewer children per couple than previous generations, that’s a part of the reason that’s much harder to face plainly than the various nostrums about “consumerism” and changes in the “economic value of progeny.”

* * *

     As time passes, the respect she feels for him can wane, and often does. This is especially prevalent if occupational and economic advancement eludes him. Those things are not automatic; indeed, many men never consciously seek them. Over time, it can seem to her that he’s just there. Marking time. Doing what he’s always done, with the rewards he’s always received. Her labors loom large in her consciousness, especially if she’s the mother of minor children. His do not.

     The diminution of respect that often proceeds from those perceptions is poison to a marriage. Yet it happens, especially between couples surrounded by other families that seem to be doing better. Her protestations of love start to ring hollow. He senses it through her behavior, which will always outweigh her words. The marriage begins to lose its cohesion.

     Five years, ten years, fifteen years… the interval will vary according to the characters of the participants. But the behavioral changes are consistent. She complains more and more, to him and to others. He develops a “wandering eye,” with adultery a frequent result.

     This isn’t about love. If there was love in any degree at the outset, it will begin to crumble as the respect that made love possible crumbles beneath it. But the respect is primary; the failure of love is a consequence.

* * *

     The above is a general, surface-level diagnosis of a common phenomenon. It’s unclear to me that there’s an antidote to it. Yet I’m confident that a lot of the midlife failure of sexual intimacy is explained by it. It’s less about loss of love than about his failure in her eyes to bring her what she married him for.

     But has he failed, truly? I don’t think so.

I care about men because im a human being being with empathy for Christ sake it’s not that hard is it? I feel protective toward those carrying silent weight and I always have. That’s called being in tune with this thing that we were given as human beings called the ability to…

— Chloe Roma (@The_RomaArmy) December 29, 2025

Labor Policies, Social Justice Warfare, And The Ongoing Demise Of The NFL

     Theodore “Vox Day” Beale presents the statistics:

     Average viewership per game.

• 2015: 17.9 million
• 2016: 16.5 million
• 2017: 14.9 million

     That is a 16.8% viewership decline in two years.

     Those figures shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s aware of the Colin Kaepernick-initiated “protests” that have recently beleaguered the NFL. Americans are sick and tired of “protests” from wealthy entertainers, of “social justice” idiocy (and the associated idiots), and of the cowardice of so many persons in positions of authority, whether public or private, before black entitlement syndrome.

     There is a solution, of course: a change in labor policies. The franchise owners of the NFL have long made their hiring decisions on a single consideration: athletic ability. It’s likely that until the Kaepernick caper, none of them imagined that there might be associated costs. The loss of viewership and the endangering of their lucrative television contracts should be a sufficient wake-up call...but perhaps not.

     There’s an important truth here: the sort of “Duh!” truth that “should” be “obvious.” And I’d bet the mortgage money that it will be on the tips of my Gentle Readers’ tongues before I express it in pixels.

---

     Herewith, a brief fantasy conversation:

     Lesean Jones puzzled over the contract for less than a minute before shrugging and surrendering it to Allard Boyce, his agent. Boyce scanned it, did a double take, and reared back in shock, his outrage-widened eyes fixed on Vegas Thunderstorm owner Gerry Grant.
     “You can’t be serious!”
     Grant smiled. “But I am.”
     “This binds Lesean tighter than an antebellum slave!”
     The smile was undiminished. “Not quite. There’s no amputation clause.”
     Boyce shoved the contract at Grant and rose. “Completely unacceptable.”
     Grant nodded. “Enjoy stocking supermarket shelves, Lesean.”
     The wide receiver rose from his seat and loomed menacingly over the Thunderstorm owner. “You itchin’ for a bitch-slappin’, cauc?”
     A large, uniformed figure surged out of the shadows behind Jones, took him by the shoulders, and rammed him back into his seat.
     The astonished athlete looked up into a face blacker than his own, attached to a body that made his look like a twig. The guard’s right hip bore a holster. The holster contained a Glock 17.
     Grant murmured thanks to the guard, who retreated to his previous position. “This is the NFL standard now. Any of the other teams would present you with the same terms of employment. One step out of line, one word I don’t like, on the field or off, and you’ll be fired. More, you’ll be blacklisted. No other team will be permitted to hire you. No arbitration and no appeal.”
     Jones turned to Boyce. “This ain’t right.”
     Boyce’s eyes remained fixed on Grant. “The entire league agreed to this?”
     Grant nodded. “It was a unanimous vote. Any team that’s found to deviate from its terms will lose its franchise without compensation.”
     “This can’t be in line with the labor laws!” Boyce protested.
     “I think you’ll find that it is,” Grant replied. He smirked. “I was part of the drafting committee. In fact, the language about ‘highest standards of personal decorum in all circumstances, whether public or private,’ is mine. If you need the specifics, they’re in attachment A.”
     “The league took a beating these past couple of years for the lack of requirements like these,” Grant said. “We’re not stupid. We could connect cause to effect. And we’ve decided that cut-ups and unpatriotic scum just aren’t worth it, no matter how well they block, tackle, run, pass, or catch. People just don’t want to be entertained by human garbage. So the social-justice virtue-signaling parade is over. So are any other behaviors that reflect badly on our league or our sport. Either little Lesean here will learn to behave the way decent people do, at all times, or he won’t play pro football.”
     The Thunderstorm owner rose and stretched. “I know you won’t believe it until you’ve tested the waters with at least one other team, so go ahead. I don’t recommend the Condors, though. Their owner just fired two-thirds of his veterans for refusing to agree to the new standards. He won’t look kindly upon an untested twenty year old punk who thinks he deserves to be an exception. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have four other candidates to interview.”

---

     That’s the way it will have to be for pro football, or any pro sport, to command the kind of television sponsorship and viewership that would support contemporary pro-athlete salaries. Up to now MLB baseball and NHL hockey have been almost completely free of the social-justice / virtue-signaling BS that’s ruined the NFL. (I don’t follow the NBA, so I have no idea what conditions are like in that sport.) But should the Kaepernick virus infect them, they’ll need to make the same changes.

     Franchise owners and the leagues want profits. They don’t want costs. But they can’t have the one without the other unless they agree unanimously on standards of conduct that bind players, coaches, and support personnel at all times and under all conditions.

     It remains to be seen whether the NFL’s franchise owners can steel themselves to the necessity. Just now, I’d say it’s unlikely...but without exactly what I’ve imagined in the segment above, the league will continue its down-spiral into the darkness.

     I can’t close this essay without a final observation. The NFL didn’t have any of its current public-relations problems when it hired only white players. Go ahead, call me a racist. I’ve come to enjoy it.

Apologetics Part 2: No Respect

     No, this won’t be a paean to Rodney Dangerfield, as much as he deserves one.

     I’ve just watched a rather illuminating Jordan Peterson video. Dr. Peterson, a clinical psychologist who also lectures at the University of Toronto, is a brilliant man who articulately expresses the traditional values and views of Western societies. It would be a mistake, I think, to classify him politically; Canada is not the U.S., and at any rate I have yet to hear him speak specifically about political matters. But his overwhelming sensibility, his most excellent grounding in reality and what may be known with some confidence, suggests an innate personal conservatism: i.e., a belief in moving deliberately if at all, and an unwillingness to bend to fads regardless of their popularity.

     I exhort you to watch the video, but just in case you have no time for its 13 minutes and 34 seconds, I’ll summarize it for you. A group of “trans” and “non-binary activists” sought, in their typical fashion, to invalidate Dr. Peterson’s views and disparage him personally. Dr. Peterson made a critical mistake: He treated them with respect: i.e., as if they and their leading, insinuating, deliberately insulting questions deserved his attention. That cost him 13.5 minutes of his time and energy.

     This is not an unusual occurrence. Far too many persons with a public profile strive to treat everyone with respect. But that, too, is a mistake. (Moreover, Dr. Peterson is aware of this.) There are several categories of persons who should not be treated with respect – indeed, who must not be so treated.

---

     If Smith insults Jones, whether directly or by imputation, he forfeits all claim to Jones’s respect. If Smith declares himself to be of a category that has made insult, slander, and denunciation its tools, then as soon as he shows his colors, Jones is within his rights to deny Smith an instant of his time, much less the smallest particle of respect. Moreover, in doing so, Jones leagues himself with the good guys.

     The “trans” and “non-binary” types who attempted to conflate Dr. Peterson’s sentiments with Nazism made plain their intentions and their alignments within the first 60 seconds. At that point, the appropriate response to them was:

“I have no time for you. Good day.”

     Dr. Peterson would have been within his rights to issue that response. (Eventually he did say something of the sort.) You must not grant respect to someone determined to damage you, your reputation, or anything else to which you have a just claim. Your grant of respect, even if it’s merely in the form of courteous, attentive treatment, will be wielded against you.

---

     If Smith has nothing to offer Jones – no value that makes Smith’s existence even temporarily valuable to Jones– then Jones need not treat with Smith. For Smith to demand Jones’s attention, yet offer nothing that Jones would want in recompense, is an attempt to steal Jones’s time and energy. It’s a theft indistinguishable from the theft of property, for the ultimate cost of all things is the time and effort required to acquire them. The old plaint “Who can I sue to get those five minutes of my life back?” recognizes this implicitly.

     Many are they who would steal every second of your life from you. People who want what you can do for them but who disdain to offer you anything in return (perhaps because they have nothing to offer). Respect these? Great God in heaven, why? wouldn’t it wiser to strain to keep them at distance, perhaps in another county?

     One of Robert A. Heinlein’s pithier maxims comes to mind:

     “It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time, please—this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time—and squawk for more!
     So learn to say No—and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.”

     Note that it doesn’t matter why “the termites” want your time and attention. If you refrain from granting them respect by default, they can’t get their teeth into you. There’s a great deal of satisfaction in telling them to “buzz off.” If done with others watching, you might inspire them to do likewise.

---

     Enemies and time thieves are important categories, but we must not neglect a third no-respect category whose numbers appear to be swelling as we speak: the deluded.

     There are a fair number of deluded persons in the world. Not all of them are plainly “a quart or two below the dipstick.” Some of them present a facade of functionality. However, when their delusions surface, they can become irritating, time-consuming, and occasionally dangerous.

     In the most abstract terms, a delusion is a belief or conviction that’s at odds with objective reality. There are as many possible delusions as there are correct beliefs and convictions: simply negate the valid one to reach a delusion. However, as no one’s knowledge or experience is infinite, it’s possible that Smith’s delusion falls outside the scope of Jones’s knowledge and experience. Therefore, Jones might not be able to classify Smith as deluded immediately upon Smith’s statement of the substance of his delusion.

     My knowledge and experience certainly aren’t infinite. Over the years I’ve been acquainted – in most cases, very briefly – with deluded persons of several kinds. Yet I’ve been able to identify them as deluded swiftly in nearly every case. There are reliable symptoms deluded persons seldom learn how to conceal. Perhaps the most important one is the high priority they place upon their delusion. That routinely manifests in a persistence about pressing it on others that’s usually absent from non-deluded persons.

     Unless you’re a mental health professional and are being paid for your services at a previously agreed-upon rate, you owe the deluded nothing. You certainly don’t owe them your time, energy, or respect – and as delusions are often contagious, you must not grant them any.

---

     I styled this Part 2 of Apologetics for reasons that might not be entirely obvious. At base, it’s about a verbal habit nearly everyone exhibits:

“I’m sorry, but...”

     This is all too frequently the lead-in to a well-earned dismissal of an enemy, a time thief, or a deluded person. No, you’re not sorry. You shouldn’t say you are, even pro forma. As Heinlein said, these people are parasites, whether they’re aware of it or not. Moreover, by remaining conscious of their nature and your perfect right to dismiss them with prejudice, you'll reinforce your self-respect: your appreciation for the place in the world you’ve earned by your own efforts, which your enemies, time thieves, and delusional acquaintances are at pains to erode.

     This is a more important step than you might realize. At this time Western man exhibits a critical deficit of self-respect. Ponder the shrift we give to the shrieking, increasingly violent Left. Ponder the accommodation we’ve allowed those who claim to be “transgender,” or even more comically, “transracial.” Ponder the Muslim savages ravaging Europe as Europeans wring their hands and prattle about “tolerance” and “diversity.” You’ll see exactly what I mean.

What Must Be Earned And Can Be Lost

Interpersonal relations surely aren't my forte -- I'm a grump, a curmudgeon, and a natural isolate -- but certain assertions about human basics, even when clearly and indisputably made from good intentions and with the best will in the world, incite me very nearly to apoplexy.

Take the old canard about "unconditional love." That one's love toward any particular person should be awarded and maintained free of conditions is about as absurd a notion as I've encountered. At least, when the subject is love as I define it -- the elevation of another's well-being and happiness to a priority equal to one's own. -- I can't escape the conviction that there must be conditions. Otherwise, it would be obligatory to love everyone, unreservedly, and despite whatever any particular person might say or do.

Love is not and cannot be causeless. We love, in the sense above, because we recognize in another person something we deem valuable enough to equate to our own happiness, well-being, and survival. I could never have felt that way about Jeffrey Dahmer. (If you think you could, kindly keep your hands where I can see them and move very slowly.)

Consider the following passage from Freedom's Scion:

    “Efthis,” Althea said in a carefully controlled tone, “Vellis is mute, isn’t he?”
    Efthis frowned again. “Of course. Isn’t it obvious?”
    There’s too much obvious stuff going on here. I shouldn’t have relaxed.
    Althea nodded, holding the agitated male firmly away from her. “Is it by accident, or was he born that way?”
    The Loioc’s frown deepened further. “Born that way, of course.” She emitted a whistle of elaborate modulation. Vellis immediately ceased to struggle against Althea’s restraint. She relaxed her grip, and he returned to Efthis’s side reluctantly and with a look of frustration.
    “Well,” Althea said, “you must love him very much.”
    “Love?” Efthis said. “How does one love a nonsentient?”
    “What?”
    “Vellis is incapable of rational thought. He’s been conditioned to be loyal to me. He knows nothing of love, no more than an animal of the field.”
    “But...” Althea groped for words. “Your husband?”
    The Loioc woman nodded. “Yes. He husbands me. He fertilizes my eggs, when and as I permit. He need not be sentient for that.” She leaned forward to peer more closely into Althea’s face. “All our males are nonsentient. Just as yours will be, in time.”

Omit consideration of the evil inherent in the Loioc women's deliberate reduction of their menfolk to nonsentient sexual pets. What quarrel could we offer to Efthis's casual dismissal of the possibility of loving such a creature as Althea loves her own husband Martin?

God's love for Man is deemed unconditional by the Church. I'm willing to accept that, as the meaning of love in this context must diverge from the definition I gave above. God is of an infinitely higher order than Man. To Him, we're ants, every one of us from the lowest to the highest. We cannot win His esteem; we can only gain His acceptance -- and only by humbly admitting our faults and weaknesses and pleading for it.

So "unconditional love," and its companion notion of "universal love," must go into the conceptual trash bin. But they won't be the only fallacies in there.

---

Matt Walsh, a writer I've only recently encountered but have come to admire, throws a clinker with the following:

Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

In one sense, Walsh's error is understandable: husbands and wives are obliged to treat one another with respect, at least for as long as the marriage lasts. But that's not quite the same as feeling respect for one another. Indeed, there are many ways in which one can legitimately forfeit the respect of the other, sometimes permanently.

The emotion of respect bears comparison with love in several ways. To be respected isn't an inherent right of every human being alive. It's awarded by others, on conditions. Should those conditions lapse at a later time, the respect previously awarded should be withdrawn...and usually will be. This is even the case between husbands and wives.

Respect is one of love's preconditions. For example, in the passage from Freedom's Scion above, it's perfectly clear that Efthis could not respect her nonsentient "husband." She might "love" him after the fashion of a normal person loving his dog or cat, but that's obviously a great distance from the love we expect between normal husbands and wives.

Spouses' love and respect for one another are not permanent conditions. They can fail, and when they do, they usually take the marital bond with them. Ironically, even when their mutual respect has failed, spouses can still treat one another with respect...and as long as they stay together, they must do so, for reasons too obvious to require explanation.

---

There is nothing quite as futile as decreeing that persons must and shall feel certain emotions toward one another. Beyond the fatuity of the demand, the attempt to make oneself feel an emotion alien to one's psyche can have destructive effects both on oneself and the object intended for the false emotion. The same is true for demands that one not feel certain natural emotions toward another.

When emotional control is desirable, it must proceed from an assessment of the facts: the objective conditions that give rise to the emotion to be elicited or suppressed. If the facts are unsuitable, perhaps they can be changed. If the facts cannot be changed, we can do no more than strive to behave morally, ethically, and with restraint appropriate to the circumstances.

All else leads directly to Real Housewives of New Jersey territory.