Goldarnit and consarn it - I was about to shut the laptop and turn off the light on the night-table and this popped into the inbox! Anyway.
"There are also individual relationships here and there in which both husband and wife deliberately and consciously reject the inversions brought about by feminist sexual liberation. We are not concerned here with the lucky few..."
At the risk of coming across as both narcissistic and egocentric, this felt personal. But it's not, and I'd argue two things about it:
These marriages/relationships aren't uncommon, in the country-side. The alienation of the modern city and the underlying assumption that all are equal and therefore interchangeable is part of the problem.
and
It's not luck. It has precisely nothing to do with luck at all. It takes work to make it work, and both must go into it with the mindset of making it work, both as individuals and as a unity. (Which will include Fellini-style arguments and stuff being thrown and holes punched in walls, because being angry at your other half hurts, and it should.)
Here's a tip or three for youngsters looking for a wife:
Be a man she becomes curious about and interested in. Not in such a way that you become a chameleon or cipher; instead reforge yourself into who and how you want to be - really want to be - and some women will take an interest and from there you'll have to wing it, but be honest without being blunt about the fact you would very much like to create a family with someone.
In a very real way, you attract women the same way you lead a pig - make it curious, and let it struggle to sate its curiosity.
Be clean, well-spoken and consciously dressed. Your specific style matters a lot less than any woman will ever admit; if your style is a conscious choice made by you for your own sake, she will find you attracted even if she thinks your taste in garments et c horrendous.
Build your body. No need to look like a sack of coconuts pushed into a sock. Normal build, no baby-fat flab, brush your teeth, clean and trim your nails, and if you sport a beard/long hair like yours truly does then maintain it in such a way it shows that the way it looks is because of choice, not sloth.
Be honest - no white lies. But be honest in a caring way. Don't interrupt her - don't let her interrupt you. If you are under 35-40 forget about learning about relationships and marriage from anything produced after 1970.
Crap. I have to log off and get some sleep but I could go on all night about this topic!
This is all fantastic advice at the individual level, and indeed I encourage young men to do exactly these kinds of things. I'm skeptical that it can work at the macrosocial scale however. Individuals can certainly work against the current, but societal outcomes are a function of the legal environment, the media environment, the educational environment, etc.
"Management of the many is the same as management of the few, and management of the few is the same as management of the self".
Macro-scale change is created by individuals; when enough start doing it whatever "it" is, then everything changes seemingly all at once. Legal, media and so on are changers of the societal environment, yes, but they are also changed by it:
Feminism came first, then the insanity we now see as a state of normality, not the other way around, and feminism was normalised and made mandatory over a 60 years long period (1960s to present), but what it is today was carried forward initially by a few thousand women back then.
It will, I think. I'm long-term optimistic. But that optimism is tempered by the means by which I think we'll get there.
It will change when most of our bloodlines die-off. The relative few who do happen to marry, have children, and so on... their bloodlines will continue and whatever genes they have or social technologies their particular cultures have that enable their lines to continue will be the dominant ones. The rest will be dead, their lines gone.
I'm with John Carter on macrosocial change. You expect individuals to change... but, how? And to what? You have an end-goal in mind, probably the same one I'm thinking about. But how to make that the end-goal in enough individuals' minds to effect change? And then say you somehow do this, they still don't know how to get there. The skills needed, the habits (and how to build them), the social skills and rituals and involvement by society as a whole that facilitated all of that to begin with, it's lost knowledge for more and more people. I don't think you can expect individuals to figure all this out on their own at scale. And putting aside the knowledge aspect, you have people with untold amounts of psychological damage from growing up in broken homes, or with absent parents.. things that also impede family-formation.
The deck's stacked against the individual now more than ever.
But, I do think it'll change. So it's not *all* bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Honorable people have always had to work against the culture. 250 years of American history was an exception to the rule. Probably why the Bible has so much to say about sex and marriage.
Well, when life gives you lemons make lemonade. When woke politicians impose open border policies, you dont actually need a passport to find immigrant girls who absorbed the trad values of their home cultures. Look at JD Vance for example, he basically got himself a passportbro marriage without having to actually travel anywhere.
American men can target trad Latinas and/or Brahmins, while Canadian men can target trad Sikhs or Lebanese Christians (Alberta at least has tons of both). I got married this year and while I didnt love having to wear a turban on my wedding day, its worth it to have a wife thats never even heard of Tumblr.
Why did YOU wear a turban? Shouldn't the wife cohere to your culture? That does not sound like traditional values. That sounds like you still being a simp.
Because women care a lot more about their big wedding day than men do; they start planning it by the age of around six.
She was willing to do a Christian church wedding as long as we ALSO did an Indian temple ceremony so she could have her big temple princess moment, and I really didnt want to pay for 2 weddings so I just caved on the church. She wore a white dress which was good enough for me personally.
You can do all those things but what is the reward for a man to do so? Risk getting a false rape accusation thrown your way after your date gets a case of regret the next day? Get married and suffer even odds that you'll get divorced? Have kids, and get them taken away from you after your wife files false domestic violence charges against you?
The rewards for a man "doing the right thing" just aren't what they used to be and in fact are downright dangerous these days. The plunging rates of marriage and childbirth would suggest that I am not exaggerating the risks to young men these days
I’ve been married over 20 years now and teach young people in college. If I was 20 again, there is no way I would marry most of these girls. It’s just not worth it. They expect the men to bring everything to the table, but the girls bring nothing.
I think the only way to fix this is for men to be clear on what they EXPECT from women, and stay on strike until women figure it out. Getting rid of no-fault divorce and marital rape laws would go a long ways too.
Yes and thank you, that is very much a large part of what I was fumbling about for in my reply.
Be clear, period I'd say. As I stated in a reply above:
A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
That Nordic-lakonik statement is a quite brutal Truth, that I learned when young after a couple of false starts conc. longer relationships; the woman must respect her man, but the man must act in ways that builds that respect.
But that’s basically the simp way. You hope she’ll respect you.
In the end you could be doing everything right with little margin for improvement and she would still find a way to disrespect you and leave with half you money if she feels like it.
It is largely irrelevant what a man is or can become even though it is still a good thing to do (at least you earn the respect of peers) it bears no weight on the legal framework and externally reality.
A "simp" whatever is meant by that does it wrong. "Appease to please" is not the way and not what I wrote or meant.
That the legal framework in the USA in particular when it comes to divvying up stuff and assets is insane is not in question; it is bad here too but nowhere near the American situation.
But: that's no reason to not do, act and be right, as you note. It is not irrelevant, if the man cares about himself. Also, pre-nuptial agreements exist for this very reason: if she immediately objects to it, or argues that it is a sign he doesn't love/trust/respect her, that's a huge red flag right there.
I view this issue very much the same way I view handicaps and addiction:
Yes, you have condition XYZ and yes, the drug(s) have their hooks in your soul, and yes it is all very unfair and a pain and the weight of your own thoughts and feelings are like a hundreweight of stone upon your back.
And it is all still on you to do right, walk tall and stand proud.
There's no other way, really, and the laws are what they are: another obstacle to navigate, possibly change if enough pressure can be brought (and it can be, simply by enough men speaking up loudly for enough time - feminism didn't become what it is overnight it took from the late 1800s to the 1970s to lay the groundwork for pour present).
I understand the feeling, but I'm going to give a blunt reply:
A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
---
Don't have sex immediately - be sure of the woman.
Pre-nuptial agreements are a thing most places. If you and the woman are adults, you ought to be able to have an adult talk over the pros and cons without emotionality.
False charges must be met with knowledge, a good reputation, testimonies and a lawyer; that the laws on this are at present insane is not in dispute.
---
I am in no way saying there's no risk. There was risk 35 years ago too. But we weren't internet-indoctrinated then. Angry brothers. HIV, syphilis, and yes, false rape-accusations too; the law was of course more sane on that matter back then (Sweden has the most insane rape-law in the worlld at present).
---
But as I said, do what is right because it is right, not because of expectancy of a specific reward. It's the only way out of the trap John Carter described in the text. And a man who lives by a code, will carry himself in a way that attracts women - maybe not sexdummy-looking "village bicycles", but the real women.
"A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do."
That's not correct. No man should ever do something without expectation of reward unless he himself, of his own conscience, decides so. Absolute altruism is one of modernity's great False virtues, the other side of the coin of Resentment. I don't know if you're a Bible-believing man, but it is written: "You shall not muzzle an ox while he treads the grain," and again, "A worker is worth his hire."
No one has the right to expect any man to spend his labor for no pay, unless by virtue of kinship. A man has every right to expect that if he's going to take a risk, at very least, the ones sending him on the errand should be ready to back him up and make sure he's fairly compensated.
No man has a moral impetus to risk his life and future on a woman, no duty to his nation when that nation has rejected him. If he does so freely, he does well. If he abstains, he does well also, provided he is honest about his motivations.
I'm not talking about financial deals or bargains at the market. If you use the same metrics and ethics for bargaining the price of potatoes, as you use for what is the measure of a man you reduce the man to a bag of of potatoes and his manhood and humanity a commodity to be bought or sold.
Reciprocal trust, voluntary solidarity and altruism as a matter of ability and choice are not commodities but virtues.
Men are not potatoes, and i never said we were. I'm not even talking about finance. I'm talking about the statement that "men don't do what's right because they expect a reward." Like it or not, a man has only so much life and energy to give this side of eternity. In a strong culture that works for individual men, you can absolutely say there's a moral duty for a man to work for the sake of the society. We no longer live there.
I'm sure it's not what you mean by saying it, but your statement sounds indistinguishable from the tired exhortations of the charlatans who've replaced "our" leaders: "Well yes, you might get stabbed in the back and betrayed and have your kids stolen and turned to hate you, but you still have a Duty to go out there and Do It for the good of Society!"
Altruism, i say again, is not a virtue, except in the perverse world of moderns. If i give of myself to a woman, i expect the reward that she will cleave to me and we will be one flesh, head and body. If i am not permitted to expect that return, i have no duty to do so.
If you find what I said indistinguishable from what politicians and other such say, that's something for you to invetigate about yourself, because nothing of what I said supports that conclusion except your own association.
So not only he has no legitimacy to speak on the issue but he is also part of the retards who got us into this mess. Boomers are hopelessly gay and he is no exception.
Doing things because it’s « right ». What a brain dead thing to say. Next he’ll talk about his great invention called slavery.
I think you have a good handle on how to best navigate the current climate. But still, I would argue that a sensible man responds properly to incentives in his environment and weighs the pro's and con's within his control. The current incentive structure is giving men obvious signals that following the "do the right thing" protocol is no longer in his best interest. Sure a man doesn't expect a reward for doing what is right, but he certainly doesn't expect to be punished for it. Punishment is what the law is currently dishing out. I don't know how young men do it. There is no way I would participate in such a lopsided situation. I am quite sure I would be out there hitting it and quitting it and never getting tangled up with any commitments. This of course would also be risky, but I would at least avoid the divorce industrial complex while getting some of my needs met. The rates of marriage in Europe are evidence that many men also see marriage as a lousy trap and are staying away in droves. I believe it won't be long before the birth rate is sub 1.0 child per woman. These laws are just insanely anti-family and anti-man
I just looked up Sweden's rape law, "negligent rape". You have to have "ongoing continuous consent" throughout the encounter. That is so tone deaf and ignores how these encounters actually happen in the real world.
How does this play out in people's lives'? Do you have to ask if she's OK every 2 minutes in order for a sexual encounter to take place?
You are abolsutely right that men are being punished for doing what is right. I would only add "if they are White and normal".
About Sweden's rape law: it's an unholy mess and not even the courts are clear on what it is supposed to mean in practice. It is so bad that there's a mass-movement of family-members of men who has been convicted on nothing more than a woman's word calling for it to be abolished.
---
Now, a woman can report a man five-ten years later and if the court agrees she is more credible than he is, he goes to prison. No proof at all.
It cannot and will not stand for much longer I think.
"if they are White and normal". Thank you sir. That's an important qualification to be made.
That's a chilling scenario you paint. The rape law will likely only get changed when one too many women are adversely affected by it. Perhaps the mothers of young men or the wives of the men who are being punished for a past encounter with a woman from a prior relationship. I doubt the legislators care about men's problems.
Lol it's famously women staying away from marriage. Good cope though.
And you're insincere complaining about injustice or 'lopsided rules". You want a far more lopsided marital dynamic, just in the man's favour because you're a man.
The majority of women, like the majority of men, are good people. If you find a nice lady and get to know her well you should be able to trust that she won't falsely accuse you, just as we all have to trust each other.
Also, why would she want to falsely accuse you? Why is she so adversarial to you? If you have a happy loving relationship, why would she want to harm you? If she believes you are net positive to the children, why would she want to separate you from them?
Relationships can go wrong, but even if they go wrong, why is she so spiteful?
Relationships fall apart for many reasons. You also don’t really know a person at first. Take the BPD girl who love-bombs you at the beginning and then tells everyone you’re a rapist three months later.
You don’t set up legal frameworks with the idea that everyone is a perfect little angel. You set them up to handle the edge cases.
You also ignore the social environment that encourages women to act spitefully.
I agree legal frameworks should be drafted assuming all involved will act maliciously, including false accusers. I do think false accusations are a big problem, and should be heavily penalized. If you knowingly made a false accusation (beyond reasonable doubt) then you should get prison time, i.m.o.
I am just saying that a) if you are sophisticated you can massively reduce the risks of a partner abusing you (and much of this risk reduction is the foundation for a good relationship anyway, like really knowing your partner) and b) I do not think the risks of abuse are so high that the average guy should fear relationships. He should be prudent, but with that prudence relationships are still worthwhile.
False accusations should result in the same penalty as the crime the accused would have received, if convicted. NB the bar for proving malicious false accusation should be reasonably high; just getting an aquittal shouldn't be sufficient. There would need to be a second case.
I feel similarly about overly lenient judges. When they release violent offenders who then go on to immediately kill, rape, or maim someone, the judge who released him should be sentenced as though he'd committed that crime himself.
I agree with you that you can reduce the odds of getting falsely accused to some extent. I myself am happily married for 37 years. But more and more men are deciding that the risk is not worth taking. The law is not on the side of men and if the man is the one who is attacked or falsely accused, he has little recourse. The law will never believe that a man's 5'3" wife attacked a 6'+ man. If he calls the police he will be thrown in jail. Look up the "Duluth policing method"
John will say this and then blame women who get abused for 'choosing wrong/not seeing it coming'.
He expects women to have a looking glass into the future and nothing to help them if they get tricked, while rolling every possible societal fallback/safety measure for men who choose wrong.
The woman you divorce is not the woman you marry. These authors (3 of them female) have written more eloquently about it than I ever could. It is a sobering read. http://www.realworlddivorce.com/DomesticViolence
It's funny how risk-averse and neurotic RW men are (while pretending to be stoic warriors), while wistfully fantasising about a time when women (the 'cowardly tender sex') had x100 more risk and vulnerability in marriage than anything men have ever been subject to!
It's taken me a life-time to learn these basic facts but you're absolutely right. Since I started wearing a suit, holding myself up correctly and speaking clearly, concisely and calmly it's gotten a lot easier to attract them.
Being naturally aloof as a person and very much focused on old lit, philosophy and history has also done well for me as it apparently throws most of the local girls off.
So your advice is some of the best out there Rikard.
Women, don't feel you have to settle for men like John and Rickard (men who want to oppress women and be propped up like pre-1970).
These men want to be the main character, in your life and well as their own. It helps them feel like men. Comparing women to little girls or pigs makes them prouder of the man they see in the mirror. Rickard also hints at domestic violence (fewer people in the country to hear the woman scream), which, coupled with John's liking for marital rape and women not being able to escape a bad marriage, makes them very dangerous men for women or children to be around.
This is all good advice. Being a right wing dissident makes my woman hot for me, I would add. Being able to speak your mind with complete freedom at home, and the hilarity that accompanies it, is awesome. I feel free, every day with my fellow Krieger.
Perhaps you are. People can claim all sorts of things on the Internet. I'll never know.
John speaks from a self-serving position. Men of his ilk would like to be the leaders of women and the centre of the home. It helps them feel like men. They struggle to thrive if women aren't pushed down. And so the push the patriarchal myth that women want this just as much and benefit as much from this unequal set up.
Perhaps you have have women to go along with this. Especially if you're a Christian, women in your communities are conditioned to see lots of degrading things as ‘a woman's lot’. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious, that the majority of young women don't want this life, one where they are subservient homemaker helpmeets fawning over a man who needs to be leader to get up in the morning.
It's not natural for women to be submissive. You see it most in countries where women are controlled, and least in countries where women are free.
That’s not even the worse. Going through all this trouble just to fucking attract them is somewhat pathetic in the first place. It’s just a form of lying.
Anyway the problem was never about attracting them, the problem is that they can’t be trusted for shit because you can never be sure they won’t play the legal system to take what’s yours. And they are mostly useless outside of sex. Might as well just pay for a whore, juste like it is laid out in the article.
The times have really changed and so have sociocultural "mores". Women have also evolved in these last years (obviously, not for the better).
And it's funny to see that even the "Red Pill" culture is starting to lose the balance and value it once had. Even old "RP gourous" like Rollo Tomassi, Rich Cooper (among others) have started to become solipsistic and out of focus. And most of their essays are just ramblings or recycling stuff which they were already stating 10 years ago.
The man-women dynamics have definitely changed and they will never return to what they once were - at least, not in this current model of western society. They'll only change again if some sort of cataclysmic event (like Sharia being established in western nations or a massive global economic crisis) occurs.
As you stated so well, women have already started "moving forward" and most men still haven't managed to grasp it. And the fact that "Red Pill" has now become a grifter and Snake Oil business also doesn't help. Too many Youtube videos just vomiting trash and telling men that they have to "be this and be that", while women have already caught up on the plan and are acting accordingly.
The entire Western World has become a society of "smoke and mirrors". And unfortunately being honest and trying to live an honest life in such a society can become a terrible liability.
Well anyone reading this isn’t exactly looking to attract “most women” are they? There will be some who are receptive to authentic presentation and more perennial romantic advice will work better at attracting them. Obviously they’re more rare but wtf else are you gonna do?
I agree with you largely, but depending on where you are geographically/culturally they’re there and they’re worth looking for. I can say this as someone who used to blackpill on this topic before I experienced much of the world. It’s not particularly useful to tell men that it’s not worth it to even try, when inculcating that thinking may stifle potential good relationships. Realism shouldn’t be confused for pessimism.
I’m not talking about foreign women I mean the world generally beyond my hometown and the internet. After having even pretty cursory experience with the world beyond, and developing even more stringent standards for women than I had anticipated, there are more worth pursuing than you’d think (read: maybe 1-2 dozen in a given area/social configuration instead of <10). Thinking you won’t be the guy to succeed, even if it’s statistically likely, can only work against you.
Women: men actually like it when you're nice, they won't hold it against you. Your status isn't attractive at all to him, your efforts to demonstrate it even less so. (weird, I know). Don't get fat and realize there is no substitute for youth other than having had his children.
Men: trying to make her happy by being nice doesn't work. Be aloof, a bit intimidating, and don't put up with anything from her on account of her being a woman. Think of her as a dependant, not an equal. Maintaining your status is as important to her as her maintaining her figure is to you.
There used to be quite a bit in the manosphere about how to treat women to have a good relationship, some of it pretty good, most of it's gone now.
I would add what I learned managing my aunt Beth's law office in the early '90s, representing mostly men in contested divorces and child custody cases, which I can sum up as: "you lose". The details are unbelievable and depressing, so I'll leave it at that.
A good summary. Truth is that each sex wants the other to exhibit both aspects of the polarity, and this is actually quite possible. The complexes become pathological when only one or the other can be expressed, which leaves everyone continuously unsatisfied.
Dr Pat Allen and Allison Armstrong are two 'women' advisors who provide very useful advice to and FOR women to disentangle themselves from the b.s. this corrupted society has taught. Actual verbal negotiation a very useful way toward success. My own advice to younger women: a ship ONLY has one captain. (Yeah, I'm ex-Navy.) You and your potential husband need to VERBALLY work out rank and hierarchy. WHO is the captain, and who is the First Mate -- as BOTH have different roles! Mostly, the roles are pretty ... uneventful... and don't need discussion or negotiation. But, if you set a pattern, then neither gets tipped off balance by some happenstance or need.
I described myself as tuning my sails to my (late) husband's winds. He rarely "gave orders," and would often discuss something big to see if I had any strong feelings for or against some choice.... but HE made most of the final decisions. He also pointed out: MOST things that came up weren't important enough to him to act on. Example: I enjoyed having many family pix on the mantle. He thought it looked cluttered and didn't care for it. However, it was not important enough for him to say anything after one brief comment in passing. *I* found that I didn't want some unimportant 'thing' to be wearing on him... so I cleared off the mantle. "Important enough" is an important guide for both!
I very much wanted to replace the cream carpet with hard wood. He didn't like hardwood, but it was important enough to me than one year he arranged that for me. Any Captain and First Mate work out the things necessary to keep the ship on course. Discard those that aren't, and negotiate those that are... even IF sometimes you'll give up something you want.
Think of what habits make for good roommates, then do that. No dishes left in the sink overnight, no messes left in the bathroom, fewer things to fight about. Also think about how many friends you have, but how few of those relationships would withstand a 3-month road trip, and consider why.
As a man married for over 30 years now, I concur completely. One boss, smart enough to know when to put the foot down, and when to defer.
Recent example: yesterday the wife was about to mount a shelving unit on a wall, and while I'm no carpenter or such I do know more about such stuff than she does.
And so I saunter over and mention the details she hadn't though of and how to fix them.
Solution: she helps hold the shelving in place, hands over and collects tools and stuff, and provide feedback when I ask stuff like "Could you step back a bit and see if it's hanging straight?".
Because, and I think this is what younger people haven't been taught:
The point was getting the unit up on the wall in the right place, the right way - not a powerstruggle or some equality-ritual.
Heh, I've used this example below on young and old:
"Equality in housework? How do ypou measure that? He washes the fork and she washes the knives? Thwn who does the spoons?" to make the silliness of modern discourse clear.
Point is to do the dishes. Take alternating turns, or assign tasks. The wife and I decided on the latter, long ago. She vacuums and such, I tend to the plants indoors. She cooks (she's a professional cook/chef nowadays anyway) and I do the dishes. She changes the sheets; I chop the firewood. And so on.
Just like grand-dad and grand-ma did it: the ones who's best at doing a thing, is the one what ought be doing it so the thing gets done right.
speaking of, walk-the-dogs time is now, judging by the noises from them.
My husband and I have been married for 40 years (we met in 1984) and have two children and one grandchild. Your comment describes our marriage too, I don’t do anything he really doesn’t want to do and vice versa.
I do 100% of the house work and gardening, he does 100% of earning money - although I worked part time for much of our marriage, I haven’t earned money for several years. He is about to retire and I’m wondering if anything much will change: I can’t see him ever doing laundry or cooking, perhaps he will start to mow the lawn, although at the moment his heart is failing and he is waiting to get it fixed on our national health ‘system’ (we are both English, living in England.)
I suppose he was always been the boss - and I have always been comfortable with that, it seems very fair to me that because he worked very long, tiring hours he should get the main say of that the money is spent on. But we have also been a partnership, it’s just he has the final word (although I have always been good at suggestion and persuasion😉).
I love to remember the astonishment and delight of our (late-teens) neighbor boy when my husband (and the kid) were out mowing lawns in the Georgia heat (90+ degrees) and humidity (90%+ WET!)... As was my habit, after ~3/4 of an hour, I came out to my sweat-drenched beloved with a glass of ice water and some paper towels so he could wipe his face and rest for a minute.
The kid, looking on in shock, asked Michael: "HOW do you get HER to DO that!?" Michael just smiled and went back to work. I told the young man: "he takes SUCH good care of me, that I am pleased to give back to him! If I can help him feel better when he's doing hard work, I'm happy to do so!"
Pat Allen always insisted the balance should be the man gives FIRST, and the woman gives BACK, but always less. If a wife becomes the 'bountiful mother' (to her husband; young kids need mommying to learn boundaries and reciprocity!) )... if she is always giving and providing, and not letting him take care of HER, then she is putting him in the position of a son... And what do we know about sons and their mothers? Sons eventually GROW UP AND LEAVE THEIR MOTHER!
Pat also stands firmly on: men are BUILT to "provide, protect, and cherish," in that order. And a woman trips EVERYTHING up when she interferes with those drives. "Provide" is first in most men's personal hierarchy. Blunting "provide" by trying to not be a burden interferes with how HE wants to live. (Michael used to say: yes, men will happily own and spend hours fussing with a balky high-end sports car -- because the driving pleasure is worth the work!) (So be worth the work!)
We women are to be 'worth the work' by, as I described it: tuning her sails to his winds... Men don't want a "partner" they have partners at work!! They want a mate, a treasure, a rewarding complement for what they do. Her "thanks, hon, I can do it!" puts him off -- makes him unnecessary!
HA! That you perceived my description the way you did speaks VOLUMES about you!
Someone described talking to an engaged young woman and describing how he and his wife were raising their kids (think it was Nick Freitas) generally IAW the old fashioned sex-related roles. The young woman recoiled and said 'oh NO! She and her fiance' were equals and were going to raise their kids that way!'
He said: let me ask your reaction to this scenario: you and he come out from a lovely dinner and are walking to your car. A bad man pulls a knife and demands your purse and his wallet... Do YOU feel comfortable if your husband retreats behind you and lets YOU deal with it? Or do you expect HIM to protect you? She couldn't (wouldn't!) answer.
He also describes a woman he taught to use a gun -- she had become concerned about local crime. Her husband wasn't interested, but she went ahead, took lots of classes and bought a gun. Middle of one night, they both wake up to the sound of someone downstairs. She holds her gun out to him and asks him to go check that out! HE jumps back and said (whined?) "I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO USE THAT! I'm not taking a gun!" So the WIFE went down and cleared the house. She divorced him within a year!
The "sex-related" characteristics are GENETIC! The men who let his WIFE clear the house most likely did NOT pass on his genes! You might ALSO note that those characteristics are also race/nationality related. Yet another reason to throw out the foreigners!
These little negotiations work - AFTER everyone knows their rank and role. When rank and role are up for grabs, then every little negotiation, or assessment of “does this matter enough”, can slip down the greased pole of hierarchical uncertainty into a near coup d’tat. I have been harping on wives submitting recently (per the Pauline letters), and certain ladies really DO NOT LIKE that, but here’s the secret of my advocacy - I want most things placed back into the category of “does not matter enough for the chain of command to get involved”. It’s when the chain of command ceases to exist that things start to get REALLY crazy (literally, not figuratively!) I am secretly advocating for women’s well-being when I am advocating that they submit to their husbands.
{wince} May I address a few things you wrote which will likely get a woman's (most women's?) hackles up? Part of the relationship negotiation is not setting little timebombs into the women's version. (We are SO not men!)
I offer consideration of the 'baggage' that travels with the word 'submitting.' In as religious discussion, it (usually?) carries the way-old-timey picture of a taking a position by force and convention, rather than a freely chosen DESIRE to not fight over small stuff.
"Harping on women submitting" -- while submitting may indeed BE the Christian phasing, many current-day ladies do not like it: not so much the concept, but the phrasing) because you submit to a controller, an owner, an islamic man... The woman is not joyfully returning her agreement, she is being forced to do as directed. (Back to Captain and First Mate -- a Captain requiring his First Mate to SUBMIT to him is not quite the right picture.)
Consider the 'baggage' that travels with the word submitting: in as religious discussion, it (usually?) carries the way-old-timey 'picture' of a willing AGREEEMENT of a person of any 'rank' to agree and accept, unless there is a truly large or important aspect the subordinate would like considered.
Your category of "does not matter enough for the chain of command to get involved" may carry offensive baggage for many women Remember: MOST women have never even considered the habitual assignments of duties and powers to a Capt and 1st Mate! (The 'Navy' and millennia of marriages have made most assignments common place, but NOT necessarily agreed to. These cross-point unnegotiated assignments can be HUGE problems!
I used to point out to the young women on my dating, mating, and marriage advice list that even such "small" unrecognized differences as "I was a kinda raw New Yorker, he was the epitome of Southern gentleman" ... hell, even just the diffs between man and woman ... could cause HUGE problems! I was once reduced to tears: stressed out to begin with about prepping a big dinner for guests), because he was (kindly and gently but still) HORRIBLY OFFENDED that I had not gotten dinner rolls. "But Michael, we're having rice. The starch with this dinner is RICE!" "This is the South -- you must have dinner rolls; I'll run out and get them!"
(!!) Last thing I needed was the Captain saying I had (okay-so, I FELT he was saying that I had) THREATENED the safety of the ship and visiting crew by NOT KNOWING that a Southern dinner MUST have dinner rolls! Who is it says the MAJOR diffs are easy to recognize and adjust; it's the small ones that trip us all up!
So, the man "assuming" she knows where and what will "matter" (to HIM and his unspecified chain of command) may be very wrong, and there's a pretty good chance his assumptions about HER duties and responsibilities, -- and the stuff that may or may not matter to the "big boss" will cause her to pull-up-short! (Or cry her eyes out as a failure before the guests even arrive!)
Our Captain has the final say: but the First Mate ALSO has the ability (indeed, the responsibility) if the Captain orders (or ignores) something that will damage the ship or 'crew' of kids! The First Mate is not some flunkie to be called on when desired, and ignored when not: 'she' is the *lesser* partner in the control, management, and STEERING of the ship! The 1st Mate is NOT "submitting to" the Captain. She is working in willing PARTNERSHIP with him. And HE must be careful of 1st Mate's feelings (doggoned women and their ridiculous feelings), as she is careful of his masculine dignity. (You know females and their feelings; you may never understand them -- but you know them!)
(Sorry this is long... having worked and advised on cleaning up idiot little misunderstandings that can even jeopardize a marriage... this is an aspect most people never see until pointed at!)
I once witnessed a woman make a complete scene with me, over transgenderism and other progressive sacraments, while her husband stood by, impotently accepting the humiliation at his wife’s hands. She explicitly stated during this exchange that she did not have to submit to her husband’s wishes. I told the husband that I was sorry in that I did not intend, by simply answering his wife’s questions and then refusing to back away from my answers - I did not intend to humiliate him.
If this direction is held to much longer, the correction to women is going to become VERY harsh. Either accept the historic Biblical practice now, swallowing your misplaced and unearned pride, or get ready for women’s “hackles” to be forcibly shorn from them. Men are not going to put up with out-of-control women for much longer.
I think a lot of it is just going to come down to patting them on the head, ignoring everything they say, and just doing what needs doing while they shriek.
You sound like you had a very degrading set up with your dead husband. Why was he the captain? Why did you shrink yourself and set yourself to his sails? Why did he make the final decisions?
How grim! It seems he only trusted you with things he considered beneath his notice.
He was the captain because HE was the man! I'm ex-Navy: take a look at the sh--- show women are making of "this man's Navy"! I LIKED being his Second... to my GREAT surprise, because I was a pushy NYer who often held leading positions (e.g., head editor in a department of Boeing).
Taking 'Second' position, letting HIM be the leader of our marriage was extremely comfortable for me: it would NOT have been if he had been the tyrant you envision. If he decided something and I didn't like it, we would DISCUSS it, and determine BETWEEN us which was the better decision, or how we could find a middle ground.
And on those VERY rare times when we couldn't, I could easily give way because I trusted him and knew he would make the right decisions for US -- not necessarily for ME, but for us!
And no, he DIDN'T always make the right decisions (shall I tell you about the $20,000 in my retirement account he invested badly? {shrug} I agreed to it, I was a PARTNER in our marriage, and the stock market is a casino.
We TRUSTED each other... and sometimes we made mistakes. Can you not get through mistakes without turning vicious?
Your view of 'rank' -- of subordinate and higher rank is ... odd. I was his partner, who has AGREED, that after discussion of a sticking point (and those were not many) if one of us was to give way when our differences were irresolvable, that would be me UNLESS I really felt strongly about it, and then we would try to find a compromise. He VERY rarely turned me down if I felt strongly about something: he was clear, and I understood, that in MOST things he did not have a strong enough feeling to not find a way to compromise or go along with my desires.
An example: I 'decorated' our living room mantel with many framed pix of his and my family members. He mentioned once that it looked cluttered to him. I disagreed -- "but, it's our FAMILIES!" -- so he dropped it. Sometime later, I pulled to mind his feeling about clutter (his motto was 'order out of chaos'), and because I FELT that I didn't want to make him uncomfortable with 'clutter' in our living room, I removed all but one each of our (late) fathers. I described myself as 'tuning my sails to his winds.' We EACH wanted the other to be as comfortable and happy as we could contribute to.
I didn't always trust his judgement more than my own; I OFTEN did because his judgements were generally very well based. And I RECOGNIZED that as a woman, my FEELINGS were often more important to me than a logical rational reason to do or not do, buy or not buy, something.
Oh, and no: my mother was a strong and angry feminist, my dad mostly calm and didn't care that she ran the household -- while still being a loving wife to a loving husband. And, to my shame, *I* became a strident feminist, bought ALL the crap our internal enemies taught us! Started returning to normal when I joined the Navy, because normal MADE SENSE! As did and does HIERARCHY in relationships, according to each person's traits and desires.
And my own study of men, women, and relationships helped me learn the truth about men and women. I ran a dating, mating, and marrying advice list for mostly women for a few years, which I described as "rescuing women from the ravages of feminism, one woman at a time!"
A woman is in no way a dependent, and women should not be housewives to avoid being stuck with a man who thinks like this.
Men, look good for women (and if not, don't complain about her cheating, walking out or dead bedrooms), don't be intimidating. These creeps want you to be alone.
A woman doesn't get a degree/earn a lot* to attract a man, but even in this you're wrong. Most married couples have people from similar family, educational and class backgrounds (as well as age). The very rich surgeon and the humble but cute waitress is a rare cinderella fantasy put out by redpillers intimidated by women.
Also, women want and need marriage less than men do. We hold up the hope. Women aren't especially interested in 'keeping' a Chauvinist.
Alas. Sam88 cannot see through his hurt and anger...
Sam, you might notice that BEING so angry and guarded and suspicious and unwilling to RISK anything of yourself does NOT protect you nor make you happy.
One of the HARDEST things to RE-give trust after a betrayal ... and as I wrote, you CANNOT go back to what was before the betrayal. But you CAN learn from it, and RISK again! And maybe create a NEW version of a valuable thing.
Sam, I hope you can someday remove your 'glasses of jaundice" and find a less hostile life for yourself.
Thank you for using the traditional term "girls" when speaking of young unmarried women.
"Our society has established new social norms that make talking to girls in the wild, or even looking at them, tantamount to a sex crime."
What really changed is that women were granted political power by naive men, over the objections of wiser men. Pandora's box takes on new meaning, lol.
The solutions are obvious, but currently unspeakable in public for those who wish to remain employed.
1. Repeal of the 19th Amendment.
2. Mandatory paternity testing of every newborn. Men must be exempted from the obligation to support the biological children of other men, regardless of "presumed acknowledgement" of fatherhood.
3. A legal prohibition on any woman having authority over any man in any circumstance. This means no female bosses over men, no female police, no female military officers, and no female judges (this alone would have saved Iryna Zarutska and many other women). This prohibition is already de facto in Islamic countries, and their high fertility is not a coincidence.
4. The mandatory elimination of all HR departments and their rules. The corporate and university longhouses must be burned down and replaced with exactly nothing. We already have laws, and that is all we should have.
Too hard? The alternative is the inevitable death of Western culture and its replacement by Islam. Muslims are already gloating that the demographics are wildly in their favor.
Genitalia should not determine who can do what. Both sexes are capable of competence. Although I agree with many points in your article, but. We’re not going to have a society where women cannot be part of business and public life. I’m sorry boys, that the pendulum swung too far for your comfort. But we’re not going to become Saudi Arabia. Figure it out. Take responsibility. Stop being afraid. Take your lumps if you want change. Blaming your difficulties on women is for losers.
Saudi Arabia, no. But until five minutes ago, the West had always excluded women from male competence and power hierarchies. Which isn't to say women were at all powerless, or that men always outranked them (eg noblewoman vs the local blacksmith), but it was understood that men and women had to inhabit largely parallel social structures.
I think the consequences of the last few decades have provided an object lesson in why.
Fine. But edge cases matter. Blanket statements and prohibitions matter. The reality that most men and women can in fact learn to work together matters. It is also true, a fact that I doubt many of the longhouse worriers will acknowledge, that women’s work, women’s experiences, and women’s contributions were undervalued at best and denigrated at worst, in many places for a very long time. To the extent that correction was needed. That the wrong kinds of correction happened, or that it went too far, I won’t dispute. But some fantasy about males-only authority isn’t going to cut it. Two things will get you closer to the world you want: 1) genuinely value the feminine and her world, so she can feel secure in the choice to not to compete with men and 2) fucking actually become a man. Women really don’t want to have to be stronger and more responsible than the males they know. Especially given the manifest fact that if a woman wants to concentrate her powers on home and family, she must put her faith in a male. Although it’s unfashionable to say so, women need men. But not boys.
I’m not really sure that women were devalued, precisely, in premodern Western society. People act like Medieval Europe was Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t seem to be at all the case. Men placed an immense amount of importance on a woman’s role as mother and homemaker, with the latter role implying quite literally that it’s the woman’s role to make the home. That wasn’t just decoration (although this is actually, contra modernity, important) and cleaning (also very important), but also manufacturing clothing, responsibility for nutrition, responsibility for healthcare, and ensuring the home remained socially connected to the surrounding community.
The idea that men don’t value the role women play seems to me to be a somewhat deliberate misunderstanding of the more nuanced reality that men did not value a woman’s role in environments in which it had no place: for example, construction, engineering, politics, and especially the military. In such contexts the involvement of women is destructive interference, because it disrupts precisely those masculine social dynamics that those activities rely upon.
Insofar as ‘be a man’ goes, well yes, but again we have the problem of modernity shoe-horning women into leadership roles in organizations that should properly have a masculine orientation. It is very difficult to ‘be a man’ when women are doing their best to turn your workplace into a kindergarten. The males who succeed in those environments tend to be the least masculine, because every expression of overt masculinity is punished. If you want men to act like men, masculine spaces need to be held sacrosanct from feminine influence; and, obviously, vice versa.
The problem is not genitalia, but neurobiology honed by millions of years of evolution. I'm not talking about competence, but motivations and inclinations, though men do also have a genetic advantage in, for example, engineering.
And yes, it's only on average, but the averages are very distinct.
Women in power consistently undermine the economy with socialism, undermine justice by letting murderers go free to murder again, undermine national borders in response to sob stories, and most of all, undermine reproduction.
Fine. I will concede your point. Averages are very distinct. However that is not an argument for becoming Saudi Arabia. Nor is it an argument for excluding any particular person because of the group to which they belong. Can we just have a modicum of sense in this discussion please? I understand the resentment. I don’t understand the response. It’s not even stupid.
The goal is to avoid becoming Saudi Arabia. I admit it's a bit ironic that it's necessary to remove political power from women to do that, but it is necessary. With women in power, the border will be eliminated and our birth rate will continue to crash, among other disasters.
Is there some better way to do it? Married women who have had sons tend to get more sane about borders and the overall interest of their countries, so maybe the vote could be limited to married women with sons.
I never said women were stupid, but I do think that women's emotions usually override their sense of reason, especially while they are young, in the ways I mentioned just above. The emotions of women evolved to make them very effective at caring for children, but not at all effective in keeping a country prosperous and safe. Men are usually the opposite: effective at business and defense, exactly because they are not as sympathetic.
Agreed. There are some good points in this article, but this idea that women are inferior or innately malicious or not to be trusted is false and malicious.
If a specific female manager is poorly managing a team of men, then change the team change the manager. But there are definitely women who can manage well.
Involving women in large numbers in competence hierarchies invariably destroys the meritocracy. Humans are not the tabuli rasa that liberalism insists they are. It has nothing whatsoever to do with malice or inferiority.
I don't think your claim is true that women in heirarchies invariably destroy meritocracy.
I think the right set of institutional and social norms, market incentives and codified laws can achieve almost anything, (including safe guarding meritocracy from any demographic-based effect).
In terms of criticizing current society, it is very hard to diagnose where specifically it goes wrong, as there are so many potential problems (e.g., plummeting literacy, limited deep engagement, echo chambers, etc...)
Women simply don't value competition to the same degree that men do. To a man, it is entirely just that the winner gets the prize, even if it isn't him; women tend to prize equality to a greater degree. Men are quite comfortable with open and vigorous debate; women prefer consensus. You can't reconcile those, and when you bring women into a male space in large numbers it makes it completely impossible for men to operate in a masculine fashion.
For most of western history there were barriers to entry in many areas of societal participation for women, but there were still those that overcame those and succeeded. If one can prove she’s the exception and things work out then by all means that’s fine, but we shouldn’t change the rules with the idea that women are naturally just as suited as men to leadership roles in mind.
How can you say that men were better suited just because it happened more? Women were absolutely discriminated against. You're fine with quotas, so long as it's 100% male for the high status jobs.
I’m saying women were discriminated against, and the best were able to overcome discrimination, the hurdles served as a selection pressure. Women weren’t told the lie that they had to compete with men to be worth something. Were they maybe told they were worth less sometimes? Sure and that’s regrettable, but has the world improved now that those barriers are gone and the opposite is starting to happen?
Earlier this afternoon I was mentally outlining my debut Substack article to be titled "By 2030 It Will Be Illegal To Be Heterosexual In America" but it looks like you beat me to it. Good article. My contention is that this antisexual impulse, which is one of the few values both the left and right can agree on, will soon be formally institutionalized and codified into law. It's like the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984, which as with many parts of that novel, is mistaken for being an exaggeration rather than an accurate depiction of totalitarian society.
It's being codified into economic reality for men and women who assume financial (and dare we say, ethical or moral) responsibility for their actions.
The EBT crisis which unleashed a horde of baby-mommas on Tik-Tok, each claiming to have multiple children by multiple sperm-donors ("fathers," the MSM claims), does show us that heterosexual activities in some fashion will continue. If you are approved of and subsidized by the state, you may do what you will without concern for yourself or any potential offspring. The effects of this on society, another matter entirely.
I actually haven't yet, even though Vonnegut's one of my favorite writers. Will have to quickly. Honestly seems like the exact sort of thing he'd write about.
Excellent, truly. But the recent EBT debacle flooded Tik-Tik with legions of baby-mamas, each professing to have multiple children from multiple fathers. ("Sperm donors whose sperm should have been rejected," would be the more appropriate term if one has standards for masculinity and fatherhood).
Difficult to see these women -- or their children, or their sperm donors -- as truly benefiting from network of state (& corporate) institutions to which they exist in thrall, as chattel. A subsidized and politicized Zombie army, used by one clique of billionaires to compete with another clique of billionaires. Otherwise, our subsidized horde contributes little of value: that is, if one is concerned about economic productivity or even basic civility (e.g., a society where people do not fear to leave their houses, and could God forbid ride public transport in relative safety).
So who benefits from all this? Politically and financially a select demographic in the USA -- and the West more generally -- does seem to benefit . Moreover, their children attend elite universities, graduate with opportunities, and despite all the radical posturing along the way, enough of them seem to settle down into 'hertonormative' family units.
The simp-rapist complex as you have identified seems strongly entangled with our emergent society of serfs and overlords, Technofeudalism or NeoFeudalism being two common labels.
If we do a thorough demographic breakdown, we might find the marraige-fertility crisis is both widespread and highly selective. You've done a brilliant analysis on the cultural and ideological forces behind this. I'd appreciate your thoughts also on the economic side of it. Perversely, men and women who retain some traditional Western values are more likely to defer marriage and having children in part out of a sense of responsibility: simply, "we can't afford this right now. It wouldn't be right for our children."
This just spirals into a doom-loop. Between the horde of subsidized and/or wage serfs, and the overlords, there is increasingly no middle ground and hence no opposition, check or balance. I do find it hard to believe all this is not either by design or a case of "let it happen" (and accelerate the process).
Economics are a huge factor in suppressing marriage and fertility amongst the productive classes (until you get to the genuinely wealthy, who are starting to have large families again). Middle class whites in particular support a massive welfare burden. The wealth transfer effectively subsidizes the reproduction of the worst people, at the expense of the best. Incredibly dysgenic.
They'll work when they have to. For now, the middle class is still too large to permit to exist. If the rug was pulled on the lumpenproles now, the middle class that's being strangled could use them as footsoldiers. If you're the ruling elite, you don't force a rival elite, even a merely-nascent one, into an existential struggle. You let them exhaust themselves in your bureaucratic labyrynth until their numbers are small enough that they can't foment a broader movement. Then, you crush them. Once they're gone, you clap the "peasants" who believed your promises in irons. That's why they're called "useful idiots." Mao did it, Lenin did it, and our elite are doing it.
Mao and Lenin were working with, on average, over 100IQ populations with deep cultural and historical ties to their 'nation'. Remove Whites from America and you get Paraguay, or more likely these days, India, but even more rootless and indolent.
eliminate the welfare state and most all of these marital issues will resolve on their own. Big Daddy provider/ Nanny State nitpicking need to be eliminated.
Strong and healthy people are punished. Sickness and weakness are not only celebrated but also rewarded. I believe we must implement a reset, but not an eat-bugs variety.
> "So who benefits from all this? Politically and financially a select demographic in the USA -- and the West more generally -- does seem to benefit . Moreover, their children attend elite universities, graduate with opportunities, and despite all the radical posturing along the way, enough of them seem to settle down into 'hertonormative' family units"
I agree with most of your post, but I'm curious as to who this demographic is supposed to be. College grads don't have especially good fertility rates, last I checked.
Sure. I'm trying not to give into outright conspiracy and madness. By soft connections, as they are known, I know of people who belong to Concierge Medicine crowd, pay the full price to educate their children at elite universities, etc. Not saying their children *always partner up with appropriate socio-economic match and start raising children sometime in their 30s, but it does seem to be happening often enough.
So we have this narrow demographic of Boomers/GenX whose bragging rights seem now about their grandchildren -- not their luxurious houses, vehicles, or vacations. The new status symbol among our would-be or perhaps actual overlords: grandchildren, existing or potential. I find this curious, politely stated, as it goes well against the general trend.
In a more general sense, I suppose, status historically has been indicated by one's access to and/or possession of resources -- and the more scare the resource the more status it confers. When we look at the investment and commitment needed, one can see why refined boasting about having grandchildren who are on the fast track to success is now the ultimate flex (or near enough).
So back to your point. Yes, you are correct. But let's track these recent graduates over say 6 to 12 years. Stratify by their socio-economic status and certain other markers prior to college, and then see what the outcomes are. Again, I do think the fertility crisis is both widespread, but highly selective (not as applicable) to certain demographics.
Let's take the EU as an example. Going by pronunciation (not spelling variants), according to one study, "The Rise of the Name Muhammad Across Europe," the rate increase of baby boys named Muhammad has increased significantly since 2000.
How significantly? In Austria, 732%. In Ireland, 372%. I will provide the link. So some people know about this, but focus all their attention on the lower quartile or lower half of society -- socio-economically, speaking only. The "Great Replacement" theory and all that.
I am suggesting to understand all this a bit better, we need to focus not only on the lower quartile or lower half of Western societies (lower: socio-economically, speaking only). I am suggesting that if the data were rigorously stratified, you might find some interesting results beyond the currently well-known narratives. I'll stop there. It's okay to call me crazy. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
My read on this is that native fertility is being deliberately suppressed via wealth transfer to migrants, which then boosts migrant fertility. It's incredibly evil.
I am of the same mind. Policies create incentives and have consequences. For example, I can understand why people in the 1970s still hoped the Welfare state inaugurated by LBJ, et alia might still work. (Yes, I was around at that time). Decades and mountains of data later, we know the results: intergenerational (now, multi-generational) poverty, illiteracy, criminality, and young people lacking basic life skills. Yet the reach and the authority of the Welfare state has been expanded. By deliberate design. We know the outcomes -- naive optimism cannot explain these decisions.
100% agreement. If we make a Venn diagram, the overlap between the transhumanists and the globalists seems almost a perfect circle. Forget history. Claim human nature doesn't exist. The tech-bros in conjunction with the corporate-state get to run their taxpayer-subsidized experiments on society. Several good SubStackers have discussed the varying aspects of this, and the ongoing ventures in (unasked for, with no public review or mandate) alleged social transformation at our risk and expense.
There's no way for transhuman technology to solve the left's problems without acknowledging the problems were biological to begin with, so I'll be rather surprised if that happens.
Yeah but similar to what I just wrote above to Data Humanist, it's still below replacement rate *for those elites*. The long-term end game seems to be Oblivion.
Second-gen migrant fertility is only slightly higher than native-euro fertility, even when you look at muslim/afro pops, and there's perhaps no difference after adjusting for IQ, so I think this angle gets overstated.
It's also not obvious to me that money per se is the main constraint on TFR, or you'd see a more robust correlation between income and family size, but... well, your whole article is about some of the other factors, so I don't have much to add there.
The beneficiaries are the welfare industrial complex. The more they spend, the more they can skim.
It's like the regulated power industry being guaranteed a rate of return on capital investment. The incentive is to tear down perfectly functional base load power plants and build useless wind and solar plants, which will have to be supplemented by new base load plants. Follow the money, it always leads to answers.
It's jews, bro. There's a concerted effort by the lowest IQ cohort of yids to breed as many as possible, and they do this with state subsidy, with private courts, as well as youth camps and community orgs. Now, there's a pretty high prevalence of inbreeding in these arranged marriages but that's not really an issue for them (other than medically, of course).
The jewish congregations with the highest TFR are not especially likely to attend college, and I'm not sure what state subsidies you're referring to outside of Israel? (Haredi & hasidim also aren't the lowest-IQ cohorts, by the way- that title probably goes to yemeni or ethiopian jews. Genetically the former are largely ashkenazim and test pretty well at school, when they bother to attend.)
You know it's the long nose tribe, surely? Well, what I can say is that the whole dream of neofeudal domination by these 80 IQ nepobabies is a deranged fantasy of theirs. The requirements of an advanced technical civilization are simply beyond the abilities of brownoids to maintain, let alone actively develop. They fell for every jeet scam, and are motivated almost entirely by their irrational racial hatred of Whites, meanwhile their critical capital infrastructure is in the midst of an eliminationist coup by the security regime and the best they can do is media theatrics. And that's not even considering their actual rivals, who are genuinely independent of them, ie the DPRK and Iran; even China and Russia to large degrees. All that to say, this cultural state is a deeply expensive policing project that takes the full attention of the shabbos intel cunts to maintain, and they're not very White there anymore. Even setting aside the competency crisis' deep effects on the puppet regime, there is the simple reality that they no longer have effective narrative control over the public. At least 40% of the American public, for instance, is presently aware of the connections between j intel agencies and sexual blackmail networks like Epstein, Diddy, nxium and so on. Their oligarchy is exposed, and now they will attempt all manner of hysterics and theatrics to defend it, but the old game is over. Nobody under 50 wants them to exist on this planet anymore, they burned their own pet leftists with this most recent stint of murderous barbarism in Palestine.
I sure don't understand how this works for the overlords, long term. Eventually don't you run out of capable servants? Think Indira Gandhi but on a social/societal level rather than a political one.
Evil can be very stupid. The system worked for a while, but now the snowball is escaping down the hill and I think a lot of what's going on is just momentum and the greedy taking what they can get.
Yes. This is one of the main arguments against various grand overarching elite conspiracy theories. The elites would have to be both 200-IQ 5D-chess playing machiavellian masterminds and also suicidal imbeciles. Doesn't mean we don't need new elites.
Absolutely right. Feminism, No-fault divorce, The Pill and so-called "Free Love" have ruined us.
As a baby boomer born in the early fifties, negotiating that "liberated" landscape has been mostly confusing, lonely and depressing, in ALL its twists and turns. And here in Canada we have already 20 percent (and climbing) of deaths self-scheduled through politically correct euthanasia. Where we go from here is anybody's guess.
The MAID program is a whole other level of evil. 64,000 and counting, almost all white. In 2027 it will be made available solely on the basis of mental illness.
There is no solution other than the collapse of this cucked culture or its destruction by internal or external forces. Most likely it will just be displaced by the extant non-cucked cultures. Good night, white race.
I think it's quite possible for the culture to change. It's gone through immense shifts in the recent past. No reason it can't change in other directions. And, I think we're already seeing the signs of that, though I admit I err on the side of optimism.
Culture in the West, has never ever moved rightward, only leftward. And that leftward movement is accelerating at an advanced pace. Young White women are becoming ever more hard left and ever more HATE HATE HATE towards White men. Indeed women of all races find higher IQ disgusting in men; and desire low IQ dominance. The most likely scenario is the complete collapse and elimination of Whites across the Globe.
A lot of young men voting in the recent blue wave.
As for the RW young men, they can just be avoided. They obv aren't the only ones who matter. A man who wants to control a woman is no good and should be avoided. Not safe for women or girls to be around a 'very right wing" man
A remnant population will survive. Some people in Slovakia and Poland have clearly had enough. Even Denmark is fighting back. Just don't look to the USA or the other Five Eyes nations for leadership.
Look at Russia, 2025 is the year of the family. If any country needs a revival of the family it is them after the civilization ending 80 years of communism.
Look man I understand that you might be very depressed about this as a lot of people are. But this is NOT ACADEMIC. I don’t think the last part of your comment is helpful.
The Harvey Weinstein story is a bit more nuanced, yes it is true the women who engaged in the transaction to advance their career knew what they were doing but there were women who did not engage in prostitution and their careers were nuked as a consequence. So it is s mistake to portray Weinstein as a “me, too” victim. It is true that other men were bictims, however
Weinstein was absolutely a scumball, but that's Hollywood. They all knew what they were getting into. It was impossible for them not to know, because everyone knew.
I'd actually appreciate a thorough, non-biased overview of l'affaire Weinstein. My understanding is that he: a) traded sex for casting, b) blacklisted actresses who refused, c) got falsely accused of actual rape though was certainly guilty of coercion as noted above, and d) was pretty good at his job- ie getting good movies made. Do I have it more or less correct?
What are you even talking about. Their careers got nuked because they sucked.
If they were any good they wouldn’t need to sleep with Weinstein.
They knew very well, there is no other way. They just complained to get more money because as expected, they couldn’t succeed as actresses. And there is no amount of power Weinstein could have used to change that.
Typical reality denial of women and you fall into the victim trap.
Weirder still, just when there were starting to move on onto male actors and child actors having been subjected to Weinstein-like "deals", the Hollywood-support for #metoo just vanished.
It was the same over here. When Swedish women who had been subjected to actual assaults and rapes by darkskins started appearing in the ranks of #metoo, it disappeared inside a week.
One could almost believe it was centrally planned and orchestrated...
Similar to how we had that trend of Asians complaining about being assaulted back.... during COVID I think? In any case, the trend vanished as soon as people started to look at just who was assaulting the Asians.
Not very long ago, I ran across a fertility graph that broke down fertility by political affiliation in the US. It showed that Conservative females had a fertility of 2.1, while Liberal women were much lower. I think this is more proof that you are on the right track with this article. By the way, I love the artwork
What happens if you keep killing microbes with sanitizer of ever decreasing concentration? The bacteria just adapt, generation after generation. They're just breeding the most lib-resistant people.
Haha, exactly. The same thing is happening in Germany. Well assimilated migrants are overwhelmingly voting AfD, because they cannot stand the muslim migrants who arrived after 2014.
The ED is a pimple on the ass of an ugly 300 lb creature. The teacher unions are an actual problem but they wouldn't even exist without widespread management failure.
Like other unions in the US, they were handed power by government. And poor management to some extent. Wilson instituted rule by experts, which quickly became rule by rulers
Focusing on relationships between the sexes might obscure more direct causal factors.
I’m sure there are better sources, but I’m just messing around on my phone with an idea. HPV vaccine uptake is much higher on the liberal end, and many reports of linked fertility issues with that one.
Every woman born after 1960 is a feminist. I don't care how socially conservative they claim to be when its about "savin da baybeez" or whatever bleeding-heart cause they advocate, at the end of the day, they're just as sold out on the basic premises of feminism as any leftist. I know, i've seen it in my own circle.
If what i say were NOT true, Conservative females would have a fertility much closer to 5-6. Leftist (white) women are dying out because they've mostly moved on from marriage period. It's "Conservative" girls who most embody what JC talks about in the OP these days. They still love the status of being "traditional" — as long as they can still go to college and have a high-dollar career doing some irrelevant make-work and spend most of their free time doing anything BESIDES actually tending their own households.
That's true. Radical feminist ideology from the 1970s is completely mixed into the mainstream now. No one detects or questions it because it's simply the water we swim in. Sadly and ironically there is nothing Radical feminism hates more than natural femininity and the roles and responsibilities (and the limits!) that come with that.
Hence the proliferation and popularity of the Kickass Conservative Gal™ — these dime-a-dozen, pink-cowboy-boots type female commentators who come right off of some copying-machine at Hillsdale College and trickle straight into a cushy job at Fox, Newsmax or the Blaze.
I'm not sure i understand which you mean are "usually well-educated and somewhat smart"? ConGals or LibGals?
In either case, the distinction is irrelevant. Both groups end up too-smart-by-half and rush to fill some position where they can safely lecture others about how much they suck without having to do too much actual work. Both groups mainly flow into their respective political machinery; since the Left has more of them than the (so-called) Right, the overflow fill out corporate HR departments.
I’m talking about the liberal women, which are the ones who go through college.
What I mean is that since they have more knowledge and are better trained for reasoning, if you are very careful about their emotional state, you at least have some chance of bringing them to a rational position on some things.
It is a slow and tiring process but it can work.
Of course it would be preferable to not have to do that but at least that’s a possibility.
If you fool around with a conservative and she has some feminist ideas (or at least play the game with the feminist playbook) you probably won’t be able to reason with them at all.
Either way it’s going to be a pain in the ass and major waste of time but that’s something to consider.
Personally I just think that if a man truly want to partner with a woman he just cannot accept her working and having too many social groups that could influence her.
That’s if the goal is to have kids and build something.
Otherwise one can just keep them around until they become too annoying. But it means no marriage, no merging of anything. Basically a roommate that you have sex with.
It's because being subservient, modest and quick to forgive/beneath men was never natural. It was pushed onto women. Obv women with choice overwhelmingly reject it.
Patriarchy never defined femininity and what it means to be female. Mother Nature did. Radfems (and myopic liberals) declared war on both, and how did that turn out for everyone?
"the truth is that the most misogynistic men are often precisely the ones with the most sexual experience. In order to succeed sexually, they had to cast aside their simp programming, and embrace their inner rapist, something they had been told their entire lives was evil. Then, to their horror, they found that women actually love it ..."
I was too delighted by my success to question the method or it's implications- it was only after a divorce forced my reeling mind to search for answers that I became bitter. Finding the manosphere and learning what women are actually like, I became disillusioned. I learned that women admire and respect things that I disdain, and they disdain that which I admire.
As always, I am in awe of the writings of John Carter, and the quality of his commentariat. Regarding a macroscale solution to the war of the sexes, please consider both the black pill and the white pill:
The black pill: I read many many years ago the work of an anthropologist who studied what occurred when prior civilizations granted political rights and sexual freedom to women. He reviewed the record of every civilization available to him, and found that women’s liberation led without exception to the total collapse of said civilization within three generations. His message was clearly a black pill of total doom, worsened now by the runaway forces of greed X technology leading toward both Armageddon and a global prison planet.
The white pill: The alternative requires divine intervention; the incentive for God to intervene is simple: God desires pussy at a spiritual level every bit as much as men desire pussy at a physical level. The key is for men (specifically men) to utterly reject the pagan barbarian masculinity that refuses to let our hearts and minds be female in relation to God. If enough qualified men make this offer, not only would Western human sexuality spontaneously re-polarize, but our entire planet would become pregnant with a cosmic civilization.
Feel free to call me a religious nutjob, but know that I’ve given the last 29-years of my life letting my heart be pregnant with what would be needed to put this empirically to the test on a planetary scale. All it takes is for the Bridal Oath to go viral on a planetary scale, backed by a specially designed Kibbutz to serve as the unfertilized ovum of a cosmic civilization. So please help put my lunacy to the test. I’m too busy with other aspects of the upcoming test to start my own substack at this time. But do know, John, that if you simply reposted this comment as a new open thread, it could be a tremendous help in getting this put to the test.
Certainly the total destruction of every society that emancipates women is a historical fact.
I suspect that what that will look like for us is actually just a collapse of liberal democracy as a political template, and the rapid rise of something very different in its place. Probably with a much stronger religious dimension.
On the blog of Arctotherium, of this parish. Search for “Review of J. D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture”. The book itself is wordy and repetitive, but fine if you enjoy that sort of thing.
The anthropologist in question is JD Unwin and the book is “Sex and Culture”. Ed Dutton argues that the Connection between sexual liberation and decline is correlation but not causation. Still, the two are intimately linked and Unwin's book is a classic beloved by traditionalists everywhere. It's thicc but everyone should read it.
“The key is for men (specifically men) to utterly reject the pagan barbarian masculinity that refuses to let our hearts and minds be female in relation to God.”
Thanks for doing your bit to demonstrate that tranny degeneracy was latent in Trinitarian Jesusolatry all along. It’s by the way however that biology refuted the cardiac theory of human being long ago. Next time, to be less wrong write “…to let our central nervous systems and minds be female in relation to God.” You’ll still be very wrong, as Šemitism always is, but at least you won’t make such a fool of yourself when promoting your effeminate lunacy.
I thank you aI thank you all for your honest comments which I address in my general comment below. And I thank you , EV Reka, for what was, by far, the most presumptuous comment of all, for it shows precisely all the types of prejudice that I face in trying to share this concept. For the record: 1) I utterly reject Trinitarian theology. 2) I deny that Jesus is God. 3) I reject Semitism, for its core error is to claim to be the Bride of God while failing to serve as the Womb of Gaea in the birthing of our true cosmic destiny. 4) I utterly reject transexuality, and attribute this scourge first and foremost to men refusing at a spiritual level to be female in relation to God. 5) What I wrote had nothing at all to do with gayness, effeminacy, or homosexuality, a presumption made by several others addressed in my general comment. 6) Regarding cardiac theory, I made clear in my post that I was speaking at a spiritual level, not the physical level, which my general comment also addresses. 7) In regard to being “less wrong,” not only did I mention the possibility of a formal empirical test of my main claim, but you utterly failed to demand that I put up existing empirical evidence in support of my paradigm. 8) Regarding lunacy, try seriously to keep a lunar calendar in some way for a year and see how much more balanced your thinking becomes; view it an experiment with yourself as guinea pig. I have no hard feelings, but I do ask that you be a bit less presumptuous, and perhaps pay more attention to the lunar cycle.
Well, this is comical. You’re not a trinitarian, but you’re more papist than the popes and their college of effeminate cardinals. You even have your very own muscular blood pump engulfed in flames and wrapped in thorns.
Now, please do everyone the favor of studying silence for a dozen + one lunations. You can begin on the first day of #1274. The birthday of the unconquered Sun follows the very next day. (No, not the 25th.)
I thank you all for your honest comments, however mistaken many of them have been for one reason or another. The most common mistake, by far, was for people to consider what I wrote to be in some way gay, effeminate, or homosexual. These are all category errors, for the “Whole of Creation” is Female in relation to God, with echoes of that male/female relationship permeating all of creation right down to the relation of electrons and protons. In my worldview based on “Dual-Aspect Physics” (or what Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli called “dual-aspect monism” during their decades-long collaboration) human sexuality is itself a direct embodiment of the electromagnetic force of the inverse-spacetime continuum, which is why people so often use the terms, “electricity,” “sparks,” and “magnetism” when describing relations with our sexual partners. If we are going to “fix human sexuality,” it would be good to know its true root in Dual-Aspect Physics (DAP).
What I suggested was a reformulation of the old idea of “The Church” being collectively the Bride of God, extended and updated (as per my best understanding of DAP) into a vision of all humanity serving as the Womb of Gaea in the birthing of a cosmic civilization in a pure cisgendered heteronormative (CGHN) relationship with God. Its echo in the microcosm is the old mystical idea of offering “One’s Heart” as a “Womb to God” (i.e. the whole one’s body, heart, mind, and soul) so that one may birth some facet of this cosmic civilization. Women already serve as female in a physical way, and in a healthy culture, know well to submit themselves to their male partner. This femaleness of women as just described is also a high quality metaphor of what men need to learn and accept in their Relationship with God. If men truly “Woke Up” to this, the entire totality of “woke” libtardism would melt like an ice cube at noon in Texas under the hot July sun.
For context, know that under DAP, the "Cycle of Yugas/Ages" is not just woo-woo mysticism, but an actual literal time-loop locally for planet Gaea to regenerate a pristine planet a few thousand years back if men fail to wake up to this deeper reality and commit in sufficient numbers to trigger a total paradigm change before we all blow ourselves up. This time-loop is a basic fact known to many ancient cultures including the Hindu, Hopi, Mayan, and Navajo. It is also known to Orthodox Rabbis and clearly alluded to in a few places in the Hebrew Bible. The “Young-Earth Creationism” of Bible thumpers mistakes this fertility cycle for the quantum-computationally guided multi-billion-year evolution/maturation of planet Gaea. This is but one of the myriad errors ensuing from Romanized Christianity spreading its corrupt faith by the sword and genociding the entire rich ecosystem of early paleo-Christian belief, and these errors are why Western civilization as a whole is under a curse of mass death.
To finish the context, ponder: a) the absurdity of our varied energy crises in relation to the sun’s continuous output of 400 trillion terawatts of power, of which 25,000 terawatts could be easily harvested via orbiting solar-power satellites to put a billion people/year into outer space with two tons of supplies each, and b) the absurdity of people sterilizing themselves due to supposed overpopulation when the planet Jupiter, by itself, contains sufficient raw material (once suitably fusioned and configured) for an ecosystem with a billion times the capacity of Gaea in the earliest emergence of a Dyson Sphere. The time-loop is God’s fallback plan: Does anyone here think that He would just let us ruin the planet and lock ourselves down in a global panopticon police state equivalent to a global menopause? This is why He empowers our planetary demiurge to just let it all go down in rivers of fire and blood in a global menstruation pursuant to the reboot of a pristine planet.
Despite my offer of a formal empirical test of my claims, not a single comment mentioned anything about that, nor did anyone demand any of the empirical evidence already accrued in support of my understanding of what it means to be the Bride of God. And so I offer now, the blue pill and red pill: The blue-pill placebo lets people continue thinking/commenting as usual. The red pill is the 19K-word thesis that is the “Head of my Memetic Baby,” just now ready for publication after 29 years of nurturance. It contains the first of the 12 categories of already acquired empirical evidence transcendent to mundane causation. It buries the mantra that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” under the Mountain of Evidence that shows how the entirely mainstream understanding of the life of a supergiant star is an ideal metaphor for the life of the the Western socioeconomic system. It shows the non-linear time-relation whereby the West evolved from a socioeconomic protostar 575 years ago to the brink now of core collapse, leading by default to a supernova (i.e. nuclear Armageddon) followed by a neutron core (i.e. a global panopticon police state). The 14.2K words of sections II-VI document all of the varied sub-metaphors in such exhaustive detail, that this thesis would be a black pill of total doom but for the other 4.8K words introducing the possibility our inducing divine intervention via our role as the Bride of God.
Lastly, I am fully aware that you, John Carter, and your followers are a bunch of hard-core rationalists fully committed to CGHN sexuality. This is why I still instinctively trust you all so much despite the many errors in the first round of comments. Said comments exemplify why I’m so hesitant in starting my own substack. But if I could get you John, and your followers, to swallow that red pill without prejudice and let its message truly sink in, I’d be happy to hire some of you as the funds arrive to moderate my substack. For now, suffice to say that reading said thesis could easily be like the swallowing of a huge dose of LSD or ayahuasca. For those unwilling to be female in relation to God, it could be a very bad trip leading to urgent efforts to barf up what you just read in a vain attempt to restore your old single-aspect rationality. But for those willing to truly surrender to be the Bride of God under DAP, it could be a truly glorious trip at the lynchpin of planetary healing. When I mentioned the idea of an open thread, it was implicitly in relation to this red pill; the offer still stands.
Gah. There are few things that make me glad to be old but this is one. It makes it easier just to check out. I think it is going to take nothing short of a religious revival to fix this. Not being religious myself, I don't know how this works but someone needs to step up. Charlie Kirk is dead so he will have to be replaced but more critical is someone who can fill his role for young women which is where the main problem is.
Externally enforced religion is never pretty and has never led to a glorious society. Not to say it would necessarily be worse than the current externally enforced state religion.
yehudi religion is the cause of this problem. Liberalism is just a christian heresy. We can't fix our women without fixing our civilization, which means ousting the enemy tribes from our lands.
Thank GOD I got married in the mid 80's to a Perfect Wife. And fortunately, my 3 daughters have been in happy (heterosexual) marriages for quite a while to good men.
Son ... is your archetype of simp. Currently (in his late 30's) dating a tatoo'd, metallic monster who treats him like a drug factory (provider). And nothing I can do about it. He won't listen.
But overall, this article mirrors my perception of the American Office. Too many coworkers fit all the stereotypes noted. And after all, stereotypes exists for a reason - they usually mirror what we see. Regardless of whether you like the stereotype or not.
May I ask a very hard question: is this pure happenstance, or is there something in your (plural) parenting that imparted wisdom to your daughters but not your son?
Imposing "all stick/no carrot marriage on men" won't work if marriage-avoidant men can claim to be gay or trans. There's also the problem that most women won't accept many of the single men, unless polygyny becomes legalized, in which case the most desirable men will have multiple wives; exhausting their time, resources, energy, and sanity.
Goldarnit and consarn it - I was about to shut the laptop and turn off the light on the night-table and this popped into the inbox! Anyway.
"There are also individual relationships here and there in which both husband and wife deliberately and consciously reject the inversions brought about by feminist sexual liberation. We are not concerned here with the lucky few..."
At the risk of coming across as both narcissistic and egocentric, this felt personal. But it's not, and I'd argue two things about it:
These marriages/relationships aren't uncommon, in the country-side. The alienation of the modern city and the underlying assumption that all are equal and therefore interchangeable is part of the problem.
and
It's not luck. It has precisely nothing to do with luck at all. It takes work to make it work, and both must go into it with the mindset of making it work, both as individuals and as a unity. (Which will include Fellini-style arguments and stuff being thrown and holes punched in walls, because being angry at your other half hurts, and it should.)
Here's a tip or three for youngsters looking for a wife:
Be a man she becomes curious about and interested in. Not in such a way that you become a chameleon or cipher; instead reforge yourself into who and how you want to be - really want to be - and some women will take an interest and from there you'll have to wing it, but be honest without being blunt about the fact you would very much like to create a family with someone.
In a very real way, you attract women the same way you lead a pig - make it curious, and let it struggle to sate its curiosity.
Be clean, well-spoken and consciously dressed. Your specific style matters a lot less than any woman will ever admit; if your style is a conscious choice made by you for your own sake, she will find you attracted even if she thinks your taste in garments et c horrendous.
Build your body. No need to look like a sack of coconuts pushed into a sock. Normal build, no baby-fat flab, brush your teeth, clean and trim your nails, and if you sport a beard/long hair like yours truly does then maintain it in such a way it shows that the way it looks is because of choice, not sloth.
Be honest - no white lies. But be honest in a caring way. Don't interrupt her - don't let her interrupt you. If you are under 35-40 forget about learning about relationships and marriage from anything produced after 1970.
Crap. I have to log off and get some sleep but I could go on all night about this topic!
This is all fantastic advice at the individual level, and indeed I encourage young men to do exactly these kinds of things. I'm skeptical that it can work at the macrosocial scale however. Individuals can certainly work against the current, but societal outcomes are a function of the legal environment, the media environment, the educational environment, etc.
"Management of the many is the same as management of the few, and management of the few is the same as management of the self".
Macro-scale change is created by individuals; when enough start doing it whatever "it" is, then everything changes seemingly all at once. Legal, media and so on are changers of the societal environment, yes, but they are also changed by it:
Feminism came first, then the insanity we now see as a state of normality, not the other way around, and feminism was normalised and made mandatory over a 60 years long period (1960s to present), but what it is today was carried forward initially by a few thousand women back then.
"It" can and will change again.
It will, I think. I'm long-term optimistic. But that optimism is tempered by the means by which I think we'll get there.
It will change when most of our bloodlines die-off. The relative few who do happen to marry, have children, and so on... their bloodlines will continue and whatever genes they have or social technologies their particular cultures have that enable their lines to continue will be the dominant ones. The rest will be dead, their lines gone.
I'm with John Carter on macrosocial change. You expect individuals to change... but, how? And to what? You have an end-goal in mind, probably the same one I'm thinking about. But how to make that the end-goal in enough individuals' minds to effect change? And then say you somehow do this, they still don't know how to get there. The skills needed, the habits (and how to build them), the social skills and rituals and involvement by society as a whole that facilitated all of that to begin with, it's lost knowledge for more and more people. I don't think you can expect individuals to figure all this out on their own at scale. And putting aside the knowledge aspect, you have people with untold amounts of psychological damage from growing up in broken homes, or with absent parents.. things that also impede family-formation.
The deck's stacked against the individual now more than ever.
But, I do think it'll change. So it's not *all* bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It won't change again. Women aren't going to choose to go through what our great-grandmothers did. We shouldn't have to shrink ourselves.
Only abusers want women without rights.
Honorable people have always had to work against the culture. 250 years of American history was an exception to the rule. Probably why the Bible has so much to say about sex and marriage.
Well, when life gives you lemons make lemonade. When woke politicians impose open border policies, you dont actually need a passport to find immigrant girls who absorbed the trad values of their home cultures. Look at JD Vance for example, he basically got himself a passportbro marriage without having to actually travel anywhere.
American men can target trad Latinas and/or Brahmins, while Canadian men can target trad Sikhs or Lebanese Christians (Alberta at least has tons of both). I got married this year and while I didnt love having to wear a turban on my wedding day, its worth it to have a wife thats never even heard of Tumblr.
Pack it up bro it’s over #ancestorcry
This is literally the panda express argument for dating.
Why did YOU wear a turban? Shouldn't the wife cohere to your culture? That does not sound like traditional values. That sounds like you still being a simp.
Because women care a lot more about their big wedding day than men do; they start planning it by the age of around six.
She was willing to do a Christian church wedding as long as we ALSO did an Indian temple ceremony so she could have her big temple princess moment, and I really didnt want to pay for 2 weddings so I just caved on the church. She wore a white dress which was good enough for me personally.
You can do all those things but what is the reward for a man to do so? Risk getting a false rape accusation thrown your way after your date gets a case of regret the next day? Get married and suffer even odds that you'll get divorced? Have kids, and get them taken away from you after your wife files false domestic violence charges against you?
The rewards for a man "doing the right thing" just aren't what they used to be and in fact are downright dangerous these days. The plunging rates of marriage and childbirth would suggest that I am not exaggerating the risks to young men these days
That's one of the things I was getting at here. Marriage may still be possible, but it's never been less attractive for young men.
I’ve been married over 20 years now and teach young people in college. If I was 20 again, there is no way I would marry most of these girls. It’s just not worth it. They expect the men to bring everything to the table, but the girls bring nothing.
I think the only way to fix this is for men to be clear on what they EXPECT from women, and stay on strike until women figure it out. Getting rid of no-fault divorce and marital rape laws would go a long ways too.
As hoe_math puts it, young women think that they are the table.
They are very wrong. Their “worth” of beauty and ability to bear children is a very short window. Men’s window spans decades. Men are the prize.🏆
"Kissing doesn't last; cooking does"
This is correct.
You're right, but as Dave Greene always say, now what?
What's the appeal for the woman to marry in 2025? Bear in mind we can make our own money and aren't oppressed anymore?
Lmao how are men in any way the prize?
"...be clear on what they EXPECT from women..."
Yes and thank you, that is very much a large part of what I was fumbling about for in my reply.
Be clear, period I'd say. As I stated in a reply above:
A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
That Nordic-lakonik statement is a quite brutal Truth, that I learned when young after a couple of false starts conc. longer relationships; the woman must respect her man, but the man must act in ways that builds that respect.
He can't demand it, and he can't buy it.
He must be it.
Importantly, he also can't act in that fashion just so he can get laid.
But that’s basically the simp way. You hope she’ll respect you.
In the end you could be doing everything right with little margin for improvement and she would still find a way to disrespect you and leave with half you money if she feels like it.
It is largely irrelevant what a man is or can become even though it is still a good thing to do (at least you earn the respect of peers) it bears no weight on the legal framework and externally reality.
A "simp" whatever is meant by that does it wrong. "Appease to please" is not the way and not what I wrote or meant.
That the legal framework in the USA in particular when it comes to divvying up stuff and assets is insane is not in question; it is bad here too but nowhere near the American situation.
But: that's no reason to not do, act and be right, as you note. It is not irrelevant, if the man cares about himself. Also, pre-nuptial agreements exist for this very reason: if she immediately objects to it, or argues that it is a sign he doesn't love/trust/respect her, that's a huge red flag right there.
I view this issue very much the same way I view handicaps and addiction:
Yes, you have condition XYZ and yes, the drug(s) have their hooks in your soul, and yes it is all very unfair and a pain and the weight of your own thoughts and feelings are like a hundreweight of stone upon your back.
And it is all still on you to do right, walk tall and stand proud.
There's no other way, really, and the laws are what they are: another obstacle to navigate, possibly change if enough pressure can be brought (and it can be, simply by enough men speaking up loudly for enough time - feminism didn't become what it is overnight it took from the late 1800s to the 1970s to lay the groundwork for pour present).
And a man must respect the woman.
I understand the feeling, but I'm going to give a blunt reply:
A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
---
Don't have sex immediately - be sure of the woman.
Pre-nuptial agreements are a thing most places. If you and the woman are adults, you ought to be able to have an adult talk over the pros and cons without emotionality.
False charges must be met with knowledge, a good reputation, testimonies and a lawyer; that the laws on this are at present insane is not in dispute.
---
I am in no way saying there's no risk. There was risk 35 years ago too. But we weren't internet-indoctrinated then. Angry brothers. HIV, syphilis, and yes, false rape-accusations too; the law was of course more sane on that matter back then (Sweden has the most insane rape-law in the worlld at present).
---
But as I said, do what is right because it is right, not because of expectancy of a specific reward. It's the only way out of the trap John Carter described in the text. And a man who lives by a code, will carry himself in a way that attracts women - maybe not sexdummy-looking "village bicycles", but the real women.
"A man doesn't do what is right because he expects a reward.
A man does what is right, because it is the right thing to do."
That's not correct. No man should ever do something without expectation of reward unless he himself, of his own conscience, decides so. Absolute altruism is one of modernity's great False virtues, the other side of the coin of Resentment. I don't know if you're a Bible-believing man, but it is written: "You shall not muzzle an ox while he treads the grain," and again, "A worker is worth his hire."
No one has the right to expect any man to spend his labor for no pay, unless by virtue of kinship. A man has every right to expect that if he's going to take a risk, at very least, the ones sending him on the errand should be ready to back him up and make sure he's fairly compensated.
No man has a moral impetus to risk his life and future on a woman, no duty to his nation when that nation has rejected him. If he does so freely, he does well. If he abstains, he does well also, provided he is honest about his motivations.
I'm not talking about financial deals or bargains at the market. If you use the same metrics and ethics for bargaining the price of potatoes, as you use for what is the measure of a man you reduce the man to a bag of of potatoes and his manhood and humanity a commodity to be bought or sold.
Reciprocal trust, voluntary solidarity and altruism as a matter of ability and choice are not commodities but virtues.
And Men are not potatoes.
Men are not potatoes, and i never said we were. I'm not even talking about finance. I'm talking about the statement that "men don't do what's right because they expect a reward." Like it or not, a man has only so much life and energy to give this side of eternity. In a strong culture that works for individual men, you can absolutely say there's a moral duty for a man to work for the sake of the society. We no longer live there.
I'm sure it's not what you mean by saying it, but your statement sounds indistinguishable from the tired exhortations of the charlatans who've replaced "our" leaders: "Well yes, you might get stabbed in the back and betrayed and have your kids stolen and turned to hate you, but you still have a Duty to go out there and Do It for the good of Society!"
Altruism, i say again, is not a virtue, except in the perverse world of moderns. If i give of myself to a woman, i expect the reward that she will cleave to me and we will be one flesh, head and body. If i am not permitted to expect that return, i have no duty to do so.
If you find what I said indistinguishable from what politicians and other such say, that's something for you to invetigate about yourself, because nothing of what I said supports that conclusion except your own association.
Couldn’t agree more.
From my point of view he is a delusional boomer.
So not only he has no legitimacy to speak on the issue but he is also part of the retards who got us into this mess. Boomers are hopelessly gay and he is no exception.
Doing things because it’s « right ». What a brain dead thing to say. Next he’ll talk about his great invention called slavery.
I think you have a good handle on how to best navigate the current climate. But still, I would argue that a sensible man responds properly to incentives in his environment and weighs the pro's and con's within his control. The current incentive structure is giving men obvious signals that following the "do the right thing" protocol is no longer in his best interest. Sure a man doesn't expect a reward for doing what is right, but he certainly doesn't expect to be punished for it. Punishment is what the law is currently dishing out. I don't know how young men do it. There is no way I would participate in such a lopsided situation. I am quite sure I would be out there hitting it and quitting it and never getting tangled up with any commitments. This of course would also be risky, but I would at least avoid the divorce industrial complex while getting some of my needs met. The rates of marriage in Europe are evidence that many men also see marriage as a lousy trap and are staying away in droves. I believe it won't be long before the birth rate is sub 1.0 child per woman. These laws are just insanely anti-family and anti-man
I just looked up Sweden's rape law, "negligent rape". You have to have "ongoing continuous consent" throughout the encounter. That is so tone deaf and ignores how these encounters actually happen in the real world.
How does this play out in people's lives'? Do you have to ask if she's OK every 2 minutes in order for a sexual encounter to take place?
You are abolsutely right that men are being punished for doing what is right. I would only add "if they are White and normal".
About Sweden's rape law: it's an unholy mess and not even the courts are clear on what it is supposed to mean in practice. It is so bad that there's a mass-movement of family-members of men who has been convicted on nothing more than a woman's word calling for it to be abolished.
---
Now, a woman can report a man five-ten years later and if the court agrees she is more credible than he is, he goes to prison. No proof at all.
It cannot and will not stand for much longer I think.
"if they are White and normal". Thank you sir. That's an important qualification to be made.
That's a chilling scenario you paint. The rape law will likely only get changed when one too many women are adversely affected by it. Perhaps the mothers of young men or the wives of the men who are being punished for a past encounter with a woman from a prior relationship. I doubt the legislators care about men's problems.
Lol it's famously women staying away from marriage. Good cope though.
And you're insincere complaining about injustice or 'lopsided rules". You want a far more lopsided marital dynamic, just in the man's favour because you're a man.
The majority of women, like the majority of men, are good people. If you find a nice lady and get to know her well you should be able to trust that she won't falsely accuse you, just as we all have to trust each other.
Also, why would she want to falsely accuse you? Why is she so adversarial to you? If you have a happy loving relationship, why would she want to harm you? If she believes you are net positive to the children, why would she want to separate you from them?
Relationships can go wrong, but even if they go wrong, why is she so spiteful?
Relationships fall apart for many reasons. You also don’t really know a person at first. Take the BPD girl who love-bombs you at the beginning and then tells everyone you’re a rapist three months later.
You don’t set up legal frameworks with the idea that everyone is a perfect little angel. You set them up to handle the edge cases.
You also ignore the social environment that encourages women to act spitefully.
I agree legal frameworks should be drafted assuming all involved will act maliciously, including false accusers. I do think false accusations are a big problem, and should be heavily penalized. If you knowingly made a false accusation (beyond reasonable doubt) then you should get prison time, i.m.o.
I am just saying that a) if you are sophisticated you can massively reduce the risks of a partner abusing you (and much of this risk reduction is the foundation for a good relationship anyway, like really knowing your partner) and b) I do not think the risks of abuse are so high that the average guy should fear relationships. He should be prudent, but with that prudence relationships are still worthwhile.
False accusations should result in the same penalty as the crime the accused would have received, if convicted. NB the bar for proving malicious false accusation should be reasonably high; just getting an aquittal shouldn't be sufficient. There would need to be a second case.
I feel similarly about overly lenient judges. When they release violent offenders who then go on to immediately kill, rape, or maim someone, the judge who released him should be sentenced as though he'd committed that crime himself.
I agree with you that you can reduce the odds of getting falsely accused to some extent. I myself am happily married for 37 years. But more and more men are deciding that the risk is not worth taking. The law is not on the side of men and if the man is the one who is attacked or falsely accused, he has little recourse. The law will never believe that a man's 5'3" wife attacked a 6'+ man. If he calls the police he will be thrown in jail. Look up the "Duluth policing method"
John will say this and then blame women who get abused for 'choosing wrong/not seeing it coming'.
He expects women to have a looking glass into the future and nothing to help them if they get tricked, while rolling every possible societal fallback/safety measure for men who choose wrong.
Convenient.
The woman you divorce is not the woman you marry. These authors (3 of them female) have written more eloquently about it than I ever could. It is a sobering read. http://www.realworlddivorce.com/DomesticViolence
It's funny how risk-averse and neurotic RW men are (while pretending to be stoic warriors), while wistfully fantasising about a time when women (the 'cowardly tender sex') had x100 more risk and vulnerability in marriage than anything men have ever been subject to!
LW men are worse but otherwise agree
It's taken me a life-time to learn these basic facts but you're absolutely right. Since I started wearing a suit, holding myself up correctly and speaking clearly, concisely and calmly it's gotten a lot easier to attract them.
Being naturally aloof as a person and very much focused on old lit, philosophy and history has also done well for me as it apparently throws most of the local girls off.
So your advice is some of the best out there Rikard.
Women, don't feel you have to settle for men like John and Rickard (men who want to oppress women and be propped up like pre-1970).
These men want to be the main character, in your life and well as their own. It helps them feel like men. Comparing women to little girls or pigs makes them prouder of the man they see in the mirror. Rickard also hints at domestic violence (fewer people in the country to hear the woman scream), which, coupled with John's liking for marital rape and women not being able to escape a bad marriage, makes them very dangerous men for women or children to be around.
This is all good advice. Being a right wing dissident makes my woman hot for me, I would add. Being able to speak your mind with complete freedom at home, and the hilarity that accompanies it, is awesome. I feel free, every day with my fellow Krieger.
Lol, I find it so funny when RW men pretend women are attracted to them.
Many of us, myself included, are actually very happily married.
Perhaps you are. People can claim all sorts of things on the Internet. I'll never know.
John speaks from a self-serving position. Men of his ilk would like to be the leaders of women and the centre of the home. It helps them feel like men. They struggle to thrive if women aren't pushed down. And so the push the patriarchal myth that women want this just as much and benefit as much from this unequal set up.
Perhaps you have have women to go along with this. Especially if you're a Christian, women in your communities are conditioned to see lots of degrading things as ‘a woman's lot’. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious, that the majority of young women don't want this life, one where they are subservient homemaker helpmeets fawning over a man who needs to be leader to get up in the morning.
It's not natural for women to be submissive. You see it most in countries where women are controlled, and least in countries where women are free.
That’s not even the worse. Going through all this trouble just to fucking attract them is somewhat pathetic in the first place. It’s just a form of lying.
Anyway the problem was never about attracting them, the problem is that they can’t be trusted for shit because you can never be sure they won’t play the legal system to take what’s yours. And they are mostly useless outside of sex. Might as well just pay for a whore, juste like it is laid out in the article.
Excellent comment! And so true.
The times have really changed and so have sociocultural "mores". Women have also evolved in these last years (obviously, not for the better).
And it's funny to see that even the "Red Pill" culture is starting to lose the balance and value it once had. Even old "RP gourous" like Rollo Tomassi, Rich Cooper (among others) have started to become solipsistic and out of focus. And most of their essays are just ramblings or recycling stuff which they were already stating 10 years ago.
The man-women dynamics have definitely changed and they will never return to what they once were - at least, not in this current model of western society. They'll only change again if some sort of cataclysmic event (like Sharia being established in western nations or a massive global economic crisis) occurs.
As you stated so well, women have already started "moving forward" and most men still haven't managed to grasp it. And the fact that "Red Pill" has now become a grifter and Snake Oil business also doesn't help. Too many Youtube videos just vomiting trash and telling men that they have to "be this and be that", while women have already caught up on the plan and are acting accordingly.
The entire Western World has become a society of "smoke and mirrors". And unfortunately being honest and trying to live an honest life in such a society can become a terrible liability.
Well anyone reading this isn’t exactly looking to attract “most women” are they? There will be some who are receptive to authentic presentation and more perennial romantic advice will work better at attracting them. Obviously they’re more rare but wtf else are you gonna do?
I agree with you largely, but depending on where you are geographically/culturally they’re there and they’re worth looking for. I can say this as someone who used to blackpill on this topic before I experienced much of the world. It’s not particularly useful to tell men that it’s not worth it to even try, when inculcating that thinking may stifle potential good relationships. Realism shouldn’t be confused for pessimism.
I’m not talking about foreign women I mean the world generally beyond my hometown and the internet. After having even pretty cursory experience with the world beyond, and developing even more stringent standards for women than I had anticipated, there are more worth pursuing than you’d think (read: maybe 1-2 dozen in a given area/social configuration instead of <10). Thinking you won’t be the guy to succeed, even if it’s statistically likely, can only work against you.
Women: men actually like it when you're nice, they won't hold it against you. Your status isn't attractive at all to him, your efforts to demonstrate it even less so. (weird, I know). Don't get fat and realize there is no substitute for youth other than having had his children.
Men: trying to make her happy by being nice doesn't work. Be aloof, a bit intimidating, and don't put up with anything from her on account of her being a woman. Think of her as a dependant, not an equal. Maintaining your status is as important to her as her maintaining her figure is to you.
There used to be quite a bit in the manosphere about how to treat women to have a good relationship, some of it pretty good, most of it's gone now.
I would add what I learned managing my aunt Beth's law office in the early '90s, representing mostly men in contested divorces and child custody cases, which I can sum up as: "you lose". The details are unbelievable and depressing, so I'll leave it at that.
A good summary. Truth is that each sex wants the other to exhibit both aspects of the polarity, and this is actually quite possible. The complexes become pathological when only one or the other can be expressed, which leaves everyone continuously unsatisfied.
Dr Pat Allen and Allison Armstrong are two 'women' advisors who provide very useful advice to and FOR women to disentangle themselves from the b.s. this corrupted society has taught. Actual verbal negotiation a very useful way toward success. My own advice to younger women: a ship ONLY has one captain. (Yeah, I'm ex-Navy.) You and your potential husband need to VERBALLY work out rank and hierarchy. WHO is the captain, and who is the First Mate -- as BOTH have different roles! Mostly, the roles are pretty ... uneventful... and don't need discussion or negotiation. But, if you set a pattern, then neither gets tipped off balance by some happenstance or need.
I described myself as tuning my sails to my (late) husband's winds. He rarely "gave orders," and would often discuss something big to see if I had any strong feelings for or against some choice.... but HE made most of the final decisions. He also pointed out: MOST things that came up weren't important enough to him to act on. Example: I enjoyed having many family pix on the mantle. He thought it looked cluttered and didn't care for it. However, it was not important enough for him to say anything after one brief comment in passing. *I* found that I didn't want some unimportant 'thing' to be wearing on him... so I cleared off the mantle. "Important enough" is an important guide for both!
I very much wanted to replace the cream carpet with hard wood. He didn't like hardwood, but it was important enough to me than one year he arranged that for me. Any Captain and First Mate work out the things necessary to keep the ship on course. Discard those that aren't, and negotiate those that are... even IF sometimes you'll give up something you want.
This is exactly how to run a marriage.
Think of what habits make for good roommates, then do that. No dishes left in the sink overnight, no messes left in the bathroom, fewer things to fight about. Also think about how many friends you have, but how few of those relationships would withstand a 3-month road trip, and consider why.
Why? Why do you want the woman to shrink and the man to be in charge? Is this an ego thing for you?
Excellent description!
As a man married for over 30 years now, I concur completely. One boss, smart enough to know when to put the foot down, and when to defer.
Recent example: yesterday the wife was about to mount a shelving unit on a wall, and while I'm no carpenter or such I do know more about such stuff than she does.
And so I saunter over and mention the details she hadn't though of and how to fix them.
Solution: she helps hold the shelving in place, hands over and collects tools and stuff, and provide feedback when I ask stuff like "Could you step back a bit and see if it's hanging straight?".
Because, and I think this is what younger people haven't been taught:
The point was getting the unit up on the wall in the right place, the right way - not a powerstruggle or some equality-ritual.
Heh, I've used this example below on young and old:
"Equality in housework? How do ypou measure that? He washes the fork and she washes the knives? Thwn who does the spoons?" to make the silliness of modern discourse clear.
Point is to do the dishes. Take alternating turns, or assign tasks. The wife and I decided on the latter, long ago. She vacuums and such, I tend to the plants indoors. She cooks (she's a professional cook/chef nowadays anyway) and I do the dishes. She changes the sheets; I chop the firewood. And so on.
Just like grand-dad and grand-ma did it: the ones who's best at doing a thing, is the one what ought be doing it so the thing gets done right.
speaking of, walk-the-dogs time is now, judging by the noises from them.
My husband and I have been married for 40 years (we met in 1984) and have two children and one grandchild. Your comment describes our marriage too, I don’t do anything he really doesn’t want to do and vice versa.
I do 100% of the house work and gardening, he does 100% of earning money - although I worked part time for much of our marriage, I haven’t earned money for several years. He is about to retire and I’m wondering if anything much will change: I can’t see him ever doing laundry or cooking, perhaps he will start to mow the lawn, although at the moment his heart is failing and he is waiting to get it fixed on our national health ‘system’ (we are both English, living in England.)
I suppose he was always been the boss - and I have always been comfortable with that, it seems very fair to me that because he worked very long, tiring hours he should get the main say of that the money is spent on. But we have also been a partnership, it’s just he has the final word (although I have always been good at suggestion and persuasion😉).
I love to remember the astonishment and delight of our (late-teens) neighbor boy when my husband (and the kid) were out mowing lawns in the Georgia heat (90+ degrees) and humidity (90%+ WET!)... As was my habit, after ~3/4 of an hour, I came out to my sweat-drenched beloved with a glass of ice water and some paper towels so he could wipe his face and rest for a minute.
The kid, looking on in shock, asked Michael: "HOW do you get HER to DO that!?" Michael just smiled and went back to work. I told the young man: "he takes SUCH good care of me, that I am pleased to give back to him! If I can help him feel better when he's doing hard work, I'm happy to do so!"
Pat Allen always insisted the balance should be the man gives FIRST, and the woman gives BACK, but always less. If a wife becomes the 'bountiful mother' (to her husband; young kids need mommying to learn boundaries and reciprocity!) )... if she is always giving and providing, and not letting him take care of HER, then she is putting him in the position of a son... And what do we know about sons and their mothers? Sons eventually GROW UP AND LEAVE THEIR MOTHER!
Pat also stands firmly on: men are BUILT to "provide, protect, and cherish," in that order. And a woman trips EVERYTHING up when she interferes with those drives. "Provide" is first in most men's personal hierarchy. Blunting "provide" by trying to not be a burden interferes with how HE wants to live. (Michael used to say: yes, men will happily own and spend hours fussing with a balky high-end sports car -- because the driving pleasure is worth the work!) (So be worth the work!)
We women are to be 'worth the work' by, as I described it: tuning her sails to his winds... Men don't want a "partner" they have partners at work!! They want a mate, a treasure, a rewarding complement for what they do. Her "thanks, hon, I can do it!" puts him off -- makes him unnecessary!
So you shrink yourself so that he can feel big.
HA! That you perceived my description the way you did speaks VOLUMES about you!
Someone described talking to an engaged young woman and describing how he and his wife were raising their kids (think it was Nick Freitas) generally IAW the old fashioned sex-related roles. The young woman recoiled and said 'oh NO! She and her fiance' were equals and were going to raise their kids that way!'
He said: let me ask your reaction to this scenario: you and he come out from a lovely dinner and are walking to your car. A bad man pulls a knife and demands your purse and his wallet... Do YOU feel comfortable if your husband retreats behind you and lets YOU deal with it? Or do you expect HIM to protect you? She couldn't (wouldn't!) answer.
He also describes a woman he taught to use a gun -- she had become concerned about local crime. Her husband wasn't interested, but she went ahead, took lots of classes and bought a gun. Middle of one night, they both wake up to the sound of someone downstairs. She holds her gun out to him and asks him to go check that out! HE jumps back and said (whined?) "I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO USE THAT! I'm not taking a gun!" So the WIFE went down and cleared the house. She divorced him within a year!
The "sex-related" characteristics are GENETIC! The men who let his WIFE clear the house most likely did NOT pass on his genes! You might ALSO note that those characteristics are also race/nationality related. Yet another reason to throw out the foreigners!
So he'll get to retire and you never will, because his work is done and he considers 'woman's work' beneath him?
And he's the boss? I expected this from the US, where religion is stronger (abuse in the duggar family), but I thought we were past this in the UK.
These little negotiations work - AFTER everyone knows their rank and role. When rank and role are up for grabs, then every little negotiation, or assessment of “does this matter enough”, can slip down the greased pole of hierarchical uncertainty into a near coup d’tat. I have been harping on wives submitting recently (per the Pauline letters), and certain ladies really DO NOT LIKE that, but here’s the secret of my advocacy - I want most things placed back into the category of “does not matter enough for the chain of command to get involved”. It’s when the chain of command ceases to exist that things start to get REALLY crazy (literally, not figuratively!) I am secretly advocating for women’s well-being when I am advocating that they submit to their husbands.
{wince} May I address a few things you wrote which will likely get a woman's (most women's?) hackles up? Part of the relationship negotiation is not setting little timebombs into the women's version. (We are SO not men!)
I offer consideration of the 'baggage' that travels with the word 'submitting.' In as religious discussion, it (usually?) carries the way-old-timey picture of a taking a position by force and convention, rather than a freely chosen DESIRE to not fight over small stuff.
"Harping on women submitting" -- while submitting may indeed BE the Christian phasing, many current-day ladies do not like it: not so much the concept, but the phrasing) because you submit to a controller, an owner, an islamic man... The woman is not joyfully returning her agreement, she is being forced to do as directed. (Back to Captain and First Mate -- a Captain requiring his First Mate to SUBMIT to him is not quite the right picture.)
Consider the 'baggage' that travels with the word submitting: in as religious discussion, it (usually?) carries the way-old-timey 'picture' of a willing AGREEEMENT of a person of any 'rank' to agree and accept, unless there is a truly large or important aspect the subordinate would like considered.
Your category of "does not matter enough for the chain of command to get involved" may carry offensive baggage for many women Remember: MOST women have never even considered the habitual assignments of duties and powers to a Capt and 1st Mate! (The 'Navy' and millennia of marriages have made most assignments common place, but NOT necessarily agreed to. These cross-point unnegotiated assignments can be HUGE problems!
I used to point out to the young women on my dating, mating, and marriage advice list that even such "small" unrecognized differences as "I was a kinda raw New Yorker, he was the epitome of Southern gentleman" ... hell, even just the diffs between man and woman ... could cause HUGE problems! I was once reduced to tears: stressed out to begin with about prepping a big dinner for guests), because he was (kindly and gently but still) HORRIBLY OFFENDED that I had not gotten dinner rolls. "But Michael, we're having rice. The starch with this dinner is RICE!" "This is the South -- you must have dinner rolls; I'll run out and get them!"
(!!) Last thing I needed was the Captain saying I had (okay-so, I FELT he was saying that I had) THREATENED the safety of the ship and visiting crew by NOT KNOWING that a Southern dinner MUST have dinner rolls! Who is it says the MAJOR diffs are easy to recognize and adjust; it's the small ones that trip us all up!
So, the man "assuming" she knows where and what will "matter" (to HIM and his unspecified chain of command) may be very wrong, and there's a pretty good chance his assumptions about HER duties and responsibilities, -- and the stuff that may or may not matter to the "big boss" will cause her to pull-up-short! (Or cry her eyes out as a failure before the guests even arrive!)
Our Captain has the final say: but the First Mate ALSO has the ability (indeed, the responsibility) if the Captain orders (or ignores) something that will damage the ship or 'crew' of kids! The First Mate is not some flunkie to be called on when desired, and ignored when not: 'she' is the *lesser* partner in the control, management, and STEERING of the ship! The 1st Mate is NOT "submitting to" the Captain. She is working in willing PARTNERSHIP with him. And HE must be careful of 1st Mate's feelings (doggoned women and their ridiculous feelings), as she is careful of his masculine dignity. (You know females and their feelings; you may never understand them -- but you know them!)
(Sorry this is long... having worked and advised on cleaning up idiot little misunderstandings that can even jeopardize a marriage... this is an aspect most people never see until pointed at!)
I once witnessed a woman make a complete scene with me, over transgenderism and other progressive sacraments, while her husband stood by, impotently accepting the humiliation at his wife’s hands. She explicitly stated during this exchange that she did not have to submit to her husband’s wishes. I told the husband that I was sorry in that I did not intend, by simply answering his wife’s questions and then refusing to back away from my answers - I did not intend to humiliate him.
If this direction is held to much longer, the correction to women is going to become VERY harsh. Either accept the historic Biblical practice now, swallowing your misplaced and unearned pride, or get ready for women’s “hackles” to be forcibly shorn from them. Men are not going to put up with out-of-control women for much longer.
I think a lot of it is just going to come down to patting them on the head, ignoring everything they say, and just doing what needs doing while they shriek.
No you're not. Women submitting to husbands is degrading to women and fosters abuse.
You are looking out for your fellow men.
If a stranger is pistol whipping your teenage son, do you expect your husband to look at you expectantly instead of intervening?
You sound like you had a very degrading set up with your dead husband. Why was he the captain? Why did you shrink yourself and set yourself to his sails? Why did he make the final decisions?
How grim! It seems he only trusted you with things he considered beneath his notice.
He was the captain because HE was the man! I'm ex-Navy: take a look at the sh--- show women are making of "this man's Navy"! I LIKED being his Second... to my GREAT surprise, because I was a pushy NYer who often held leading positions (e.g., head editor in a department of Boeing).
Taking 'Second' position, letting HIM be the leader of our marriage was extremely comfortable for me: it would NOT have been if he had been the tyrant you envision. If he decided something and I didn't like it, we would DISCUSS it, and determine BETWEEN us which was the better decision, or how we could find a middle ground.
And on those VERY rare times when we couldn't, I could easily give way because I trusted him and knew he would make the right decisions for US -- not necessarily for ME, but for us!
And no, he DIDN'T always make the right decisions (shall I tell you about the $20,000 in my retirement account he invested badly? {shrug} I agreed to it, I was a PARTNER in our marriage, and the stock market is a casino.
We TRUSTED each other... and sometimes we made mistakes. Can you not get through mistakes without turning vicious?
How are you a partner if ultimately you are his subordinate? I guess a junior partner,?
Why did you trust his judgement more than your own? Did your parent condition you to view women like this?
Your view of 'rank' -- of subordinate and higher rank is ... odd. I was his partner, who has AGREED, that after discussion of a sticking point (and those were not many) if one of us was to give way when our differences were irresolvable, that would be me UNLESS I really felt strongly about it, and then we would try to find a compromise. He VERY rarely turned me down if I felt strongly about something: he was clear, and I understood, that in MOST things he did not have a strong enough feeling to not find a way to compromise or go along with my desires.
An example: I 'decorated' our living room mantel with many framed pix of his and my family members. He mentioned once that it looked cluttered to him. I disagreed -- "but, it's our FAMILIES!" -- so he dropped it. Sometime later, I pulled to mind his feeling about clutter (his motto was 'order out of chaos'), and because I FELT that I didn't want to make him uncomfortable with 'clutter' in our living room, I removed all but one each of our (late) fathers. I described myself as 'tuning my sails to his winds.' We EACH wanted the other to be as comfortable and happy as we could contribute to.
I didn't always trust his judgement more than my own; I OFTEN did because his judgements were generally very well based. And I RECOGNIZED that as a woman, my FEELINGS were often more important to me than a logical rational reason to do or not do, buy or not buy, something.
Oh, and no: my mother was a strong and angry feminist, my dad mostly calm and didn't care that she ran the household -- while still being a loving wife to a loving husband. And, to my shame, *I* became a strident feminist, bought ALL the crap our internal enemies taught us! Started returning to normal when I joined the Navy, because normal MADE SENSE! As did and does HIERARCHY in relationships, according to each person's traits and desires.
And my own study of men, women, and relationships helped me learn the truth about men and women. I ran a dating, mating, and marrying advice list for mostly women for a few years, which I described as "rescuing women from the ravages of feminism, one woman at a time!"
This is absolutely awful advice.
A woman is in no way a dependent, and women should not be housewives to avoid being stuck with a man who thinks like this.
Men, look good for women (and if not, don't complain about her cheating, walking out or dead bedrooms), don't be intimidating. These creeps want you to be alone.
A woman doesn't get a degree/earn a lot* to attract a man, but even in this you're wrong. Most married couples have people from similar family, educational and class backgrounds (as well as age). The very rich surgeon and the humble but cute waitress is a rare cinderella fantasy put out by redpillers intimidated by women.
Also, women want and need marriage less than men do. We hold up the hope. Women aren't especially interested in 'keeping' a Chauvinist.
When the Islamic conquest comes, it will be too late for you to see the error in your thinking.
Alas. Sam88 cannot see through his hurt and anger...
Sam, you might notice that BEING so angry and guarded and suspicious and unwilling to RISK anything of yourself does NOT protect you nor make you happy.
One of the HARDEST things to RE-give trust after a betrayal ... and as I wrote, you CANNOT go back to what was before the betrayal. But you CAN learn from it, and RISK again! And maybe create a NEW version of a valuable thing.
Sam, I hope you can someday remove your 'glasses of jaundice" and find a less hostile life for yourself.
I filled up the sticker chart but she still wont have sex with me. Should I save my allowance money to buy a PS6?
Just try to be desirable. Make her glad she chose you.
Thank you for using the traditional term "girls" when speaking of young unmarried women.
"Our society has established new social norms that make talking to girls in the wild, or even looking at them, tantamount to a sex crime."
What really changed is that women were granted political power by naive men, over the objections of wiser men. Pandora's box takes on new meaning, lol.
The solutions are obvious, but currently unspeakable in public for those who wish to remain employed.
1. Repeal of the 19th Amendment.
2. Mandatory paternity testing of every newborn. Men must be exempted from the obligation to support the biological children of other men, regardless of "presumed acknowledgement" of fatherhood.
3. A legal prohibition on any woman having authority over any man in any circumstance. This means no female bosses over men, no female police, no female military officers, and no female judges (this alone would have saved Iryna Zarutska and many other women). This prohibition is already de facto in Islamic countries, and their high fertility is not a coincidence.
4. The mandatory elimination of all HR departments and their rules. The corporate and university longhouses must be burned down and replaced with exactly nothing. We already have laws, and that is all we should have.
Too hard? The alternative is the inevitable death of Western culture and its replacement by Islam. Muslims are already gloating that the demographics are wildly in their favor.
I especially like number 3.
Genitalia should not determine who can do what. Both sexes are capable of competence. Although I agree with many points in your article, but. We’re not going to have a society where women cannot be part of business and public life. I’m sorry boys, that the pendulum swung too far for your comfort. But we’re not going to become Saudi Arabia. Figure it out. Take responsibility. Stop being afraid. Take your lumps if you want change. Blaming your difficulties on women is for losers.
Saudi Arabia, no. But until five minutes ago, the West had always excluded women from male competence and power hierarchies. Which isn't to say women were at all powerless, or that men always outranked them (eg noblewoman vs the local blacksmith), but it was understood that men and women had to inhabit largely parallel social structures.
I think the consequences of the last few decades have provided an object lesson in why.
Fine. But edge cases matter. Blanket statements and prohibitions matter. The reality that most men and women can in fact learn to work together matters. It is also true, a fact that I doubt many of the longhouse worriers will acknowledge, that women’s work, women’s experiences, and women’s contributions were undervalued at best and denigrated at worst, in many places for a very long time. To the extent that correction was needed. That the wrong kinds of correction happened, or that it went too far, I won’t dispute. But some fantasy about males-only authority isn’t going to cut it. Two things will get you closer to the world you want: 1) genuinely value the feminine and her world, so she can feel secure in the choice to not to compete with men and 2) fucking actually become a man. Women really don’t want to have to be stronger and more responsible than the males they know. Especially given the manifest fact that if a woman wants to concentrate her powers on home and family, she must put her faith in a male. Although it’s unfashionable to say so, women need men. But not boys.
I’m not really sure that women were devalued, precisely, in premodern Western society. People act like Medieval Europe was Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t seem to be at all the case. Men placed an immense amount of importance on a woman’s role as mother and homemaker, with the latter role implying quite literally that it’s the woman’s role to make the home. That wasn’t just decoration (although this is actually, contra modernity, important) and cleaning (also very important), but also manufacturing clothing, responsibility for nutrition, responsibility for healthcare, and ensuring the home remained socially connected to the surrounding community.
The idea that men don’t value the role women play seems to me to be a somewhat deliberate misunderstanding of the more nuanced reality that men did not value a woman’s role in environments in which it had no place: for example, construction, engineering, politics, and especially the military. In such contexts the involvement of women is destructive interference, because it disrupts precisely those masculine social dynamics that those activities rely upon.
Insofar as ‘be a man’ goes, well yes, but again we have the problem of modernity shoe-horning women into leadership roles in organizations that should properly have a masculine orientation. It is very difficult to ‘be a man’ when women are doing their best to turn your workplace into a kindergarten. The males who succeed in those environments tend to be the least masculine, because every expression of overt masculinity is punished. If you want men to act like men, masculine spaces need to be held sacrosanct from feminine influence; and, obviously, vice versa.
> But edge cases matter
No, they absolutely do not; that's why they are edge cases.
This is perhaps a corollary to John Carter's claim that individual action isn't going to solve this problem at the societal level.
The problem is not genitalia, but neurobiology honed by millions of years of evolution. I'm not talking about competence, but motivations and inclinations, though men do also have a genetic advantage in, for example, engineering.
And yes, it's only on average, but the averages are very distinct.
Women in power consistently undermine the economy with socialism, undermine justice by letting murderers go free to murder again, undermine national borders in response to sob stories, and most of all, undermine reproduction.
Fine. I will concede your point. Averages are very distinct. However that is not an argument for becoming Saudi Arabia. Nor is it an argument for excluding any particular person because of the group to which they belong. Can we just have a modicum of sense in this discussion please? I understand the resentment. I don’t understand the response. It’s not even stupid.
The goal is to avoid becoming Saudi Arabia. I admit it's a bit ironic that it's necessary to remove political power from women to do that, but it is necessary. With women in power, the border will be eliminated and our birth rate will continue to crash, among other disasters.
Is there some better way to do it? Married women who have had sons tend to get more sane about borders and the overall interest of their countries, so maybe the vote could be limited to married women with sons.
I never said women were stupid, but I do think that women's emotions usually override their sense of reason, especially while they are young, in the ways I mentioned just above. The emotions of women evolved to make them very effective at caring for children, but not at all effective in keeping a country prosperous and safe. Men are usually the opposite: effective at business and defense, exactly because they are not as sympathetic.
Agreed. There are some good points in this article, but this idea that women are inferior or innately malicious or not to be trusted is false and malicious.
If a specific female manager is poorly managing a team of men, then change the team change the manager. But there are definitely women who can manage well.
Fundamentally we want a meritocracy.
Involving women in large numbers in competence hierarchies invariably destroys the meritocracy. Humans are not the tabuli rasa that liberalism insists they are. It has nothing whatsoever to do with malice or inferiority.
I don't think your claim is true that women in heirarchies invariably destroy meritocracy.
I think the right set of institutional and social norms, market incentives and codified laws can achieve almost anything, (including safe guarding meritocracy from any demographic-based effect).
In terms of criticizing current society, it is very hard to diagnose where specifically it goes wrong, as there are so many potential problems (e.g., plummeting literacy, limited deep engagement, echo chambers, etc...)
We ran the experiment, and we have the results.
Women simply don't value competition to the same degree that men do. To a man, it is entirely just that the winner gets the prize, even if it isn't him; women tend to prize equality to a greater degree. Men are quite comfortable with open and vigorous debate; women prefer consensus. You can't reconcile those, and when you bring women into a male space in large numbers it makes it completely impossible for men to operate in a masculine fashion.
I can diagnose it.
For most of western history there were barriers to entry in many areas of societal participation for women, but there were still those that overcame those and succeeded. If one can prove she’s the exception and things work out then by all means that’s fine, but we shouldn’t change the rules with the idea that women are naturally just as suited as men to leadership roles in mind.
How can you say that men were better suited just because it happened more? Women were absolutely discriminated against. You're fine with quotas, so long as it's 100% male for the high status jobs.
I’m saying women were discriminated against, and the best were able to overcome discrimination, the hurdles served as a selection pressure. Women weren’t told the lie that they had to compete with men to be worth something. Were they maybe told they were worth less sometimes? Sure and that’s regrettable, but has the world improved now that those barriers are gone and the opposite is starting to happen?
Excellent!
Thank you!
Earlier this afternoon I was mentally outlining my debut Substack article to be titled "By 2030 It Will Be Illegal To Be Heterosexual In America" but it looks like you beat me to it. Good article. My contention is that this antisexual impulse, which is one of the few values both the left and right can agree on, will soon be formally institutionalized and codified into law. It's like the Junior Anti-Sex League from 1984, which as with many parts of that novel, is mistaken for being an exaggeration rather than an accurate depiction of totalitarian society.
I encourage you to write that.
Sexual repression of a very particular kind is characteristic of totalitarian societies. In particular, it's the men who need to be controlled.
It's being codified into economic reality for men and women who assume financial (and dare we say, ethical or moral) responsibility for their actions.
The EBT crisis which unleashed a horde of baby-mommas on Tik-Tok, each claiming to have multiple children by multiple sperm-donors ("fathers," the MSM claims), does show us that heterosexual activities in some fashion will continue. If you are approved of and subsidized by the state, you may do what you will without concern for yourself or any potential offspring. The effects of this on society, another matter entirely.
society was far better off when divorce was heavily stigmatized.
Did you ever read 'Welcome To The Monkey House' by Kurt Vonnegut?
https://www.artandpopularculture.com/Welcome_to_the_Monkey_House_%28short_story%29
I actually haven't yet, even though Vonnegut's one of my favorite writers. Will have to quickly. Honestly seems like the exact sort of thing he'd write about.
Never.
Excellent, truly. But the recent EBT debacle flooded Tik-Tik with legions of baby-mamas, each professing to have multiple children from multiple fathers. ("Sperm donors whose sperm should have been rejected," would be the more appropriate term if one has standards for masculinity and fatherhood).
Difficult to see these women -- or their children, or their sperm donors -- as truly benefiting from network of state (& corporate) institutions to which they exist in thrall, as chattel. A subsidized and politicized Zombie army, used by one clique of billionaires to compete with another clique of billionaires. Otherwise, our subsidized horde contributes little of value: that is, if one is concerned about economic productivity or even basic civility (e.g., a society where people do not fear to leave their houses, and could God forbid ride public transport in relative safety).
So who benefits from all this? Politically and financially a select demographic in the USA -- and the West more generally -- does seem to benefit . Moreover, their children attend elite universities, graduate with opportunities, and despite all the radical posturing along the way, enough of them seem to settle down into 'hertonormative' family units.
The simp-rapist complex as you have identified seems strongly entangled with our emergent society of serfs and overlords, Technofeudalism or NeoFeudalism being two common labels.
If we do a thorough demographic breakdown, we might find the marraige-fertility crisis is both widespread and highly selective. You've done a brilliant analysis on the cultural and ideological forces behind this. I'd appreciate your thoughts also on the economic side of it. Perversely, men and women who retain some traditional Western values are more likely to defer marriage and having children in part out of a sense of responsibility: simply, "we can't afford this right now. It wouldn't be right for our children."
This just spirals into a doom-loop. Between the horde of subsidized and/or wage serfs, and the overlords, there is increasingly no middle ground and hence no opposition, check or balance. I do find it hard to believe all this is not either by design or a case of "let it happen" (and accelerate the process).
Economics are a huge factor in suppressing marriage and fertility amongst the productive classes (until you get to the genuinely wealthy, who are starting to have large families again). Middle class whites in particular support a massive welfare burden. The wealth transfer effectively subsidizes the reproduction of the worst people, at the expense of the best. Incredibly dysgenic.
It's the engineered creation of a pliable slave population.
Bingo.
Except they don't work, only consume.
They'll work when they have to. For now, the middle class is still too large to permit to exist. If the rug was pulled on the lumpenproles now, the middle class that's being strangled could use them as footsoldiers. If you're the ruling elite, you don't force a rival elite, even a merely-nascent one, into an existential struggle. You let them exhaust themselves in your bureaucratic labyrynth until their numbers are small enough that they can't foment a broader movement. Then, you crush them. Once they're gone, you clap the "peasants" who believed your promises in irons. That's why they're called "useful idiots." Mao did it, Lenin did it, and our elite are doing it.
Mao and Lenin were working with, on average, over 100IQ populations with deep cultural and historical ties to their 'nation'. Remove Whites from America and you get Paraguay, or more likely these days, India, but even more rootless and indolent.
eliminate the welfare state and most all of these marital issues will resolve on their own. Big Daddy provider/ Nanny State nitpicking need to be eliminated.
Compelled to agree by reality.
Strong and healthy people are punished. Sickness and weakness are not only celebrated but also rewarded. I believe we must implement a reset, but not an eat-bugs variety.
If you have the chance visit Uruguay, for educational purposes, you will see the results of the genetic drift.
One of the few South American countries I haven't been to. No interest in it, tbh. Every picture I've seen showed a remarkably ugly people.
Makes sense. The country fell from being the South American Switzerland to being like Canada in every bad way and speed running to being India.
> "So who benefits from all this? Politically and financially a select demographic in the USA -- and the West more generally -- does seem to benefit . Moreover, their children attend elite universities, graduate with opportunities, and despite all the radical posturing along the way, enough of them seem to settle down into 'hertonormative' family units"
I agree with most of your post, but I'm curious as to who this demographic is supposed to be. College grads don't have especially good fertility rates, last I checked.
Sure. I'm trying not to give into outright conspiracy and madness. By soft connections, as they are known, I know of people who belong to Concierge Medicine crowd, pay the full price to educate their children at elite universities, etc. Not saying their children *always partner up with appropriate socio-economic match and start raising children sometime in their 30s, but it does seem to be happening often enough.
So we have this narrow demographic of Boomers/GenX whose bragging rights seem now about their grandchildren -- not their luxurious houses, vehicles, or vacations. The new status symbol among our would-be or perhaps actual overlords: grandchildren, existing or potential. I find this curious, politely stated, as it goes well against the general trend.
In a more general sense, I suppose, status historically has been indicated by one's access to and/or possession of resources -- and the more scare the resource the more status it confers. When we look at the investment and commitment needed, one can see why refined boasting about having grandchildren who are on the fast track to success is now the ultimate flex (or near enough).
So back to your point. Yes, you are correct. But let's track these recent graduates over say 6 to 12 years. Stratify by their socio-economic status and certain other markers prior to college, and then see what the outcomes are. Again, I do think the fertility crisis is both widespread, but highly selective (not as applicable) to certain demographics.
Let's take the EU as an example. Going by pronunciation (not spelling variants), according to one study, "The Rise of the Name Muhammad Across Europe," the rate increase of baby boys named Muhammad has increased significantly since 2000.
How significantly? In Austria, 732%. In Ireland, 372%. I will provide the link. So some people know about this, but focus all their attention on the lower quartile or lower half of society -- socio-economically, speaking only. The "Great Replacement" theory and all that.
I am suggesting to understand all this a bit better, we need to focus not only on the lower quartile or lower half of Western societies (lower: socio-economically, speaking only). I am suggesting that if the data were rigorously stratified, you might find some interesting results beyond the currently well-known narratives. I'll stop there. It's okay to call me crazy. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Name Muhammad: https://dailysceptic.org/2025/08/23/the-rise-of-the-name-muhammad-across-europe/
My read on this is that native fertility is being deliberately suppressed via wealth transfer to migrants, which then boosts migrant fertility. It's incredibly evil.
I am of the same mind. Policies create incentives and have consequences. For example, I can understand why people in the 1970s still hoped the Welfare state inaugurated by LBJ, et alia might still work. (Yes, I was around at that time). Decades and mountains of data later, we know the results: intergenerational (now, multi-generational) poverty, illiteracy, criminality, and young people lacking basic life skills. Yet the reach and the authority of the Welfare state has been expanded. By deliberate design. We know the outcomes -- naive optimism cannot explain these decisions.
Don't forget the rush towards the 'augmented,' 'post-human' that gaining ever more prominent in mainstream narratives.
100% agreement. If we make a Venn diagram, the overlap between the transhumanists and the globalists seems almost a perfect circle. Forget history. Claim human nature doesn't exist. The tech-bros in conjunction with the corporate-state get to run their taxpayer-subsidized experiments on society. Several good SubStackers have discussed the varying aspects of this, and the ongoing ventures in (unasked for, with no public review or mandate) alleged social transformation at our risk and expense.
There's no way for transhuman technology to solve the left's problems without acknowledging the problems were biological to begin with, so I'll be rather surprised if that happens.
Yeah but similar to what I just wrote above to Data Humanist, it's still below replacement rate *for those elites*. The long-term end game seems to be Oblivion.
Second-gen migrant fertility is only slightly higher than native-euro fertility, even when you look at muslim/afro pops, and there's perhaps no difference after adjusting for IQ, so I think this angle gets overstated.
It's also not obvious to me that money per se is the main constraint on TFR, or you'd see a more robust correlation between income and family size, but... well, your whole article is about some of the other factors, so I don't have much to add there.
The beneficiaries are the welfare industrial complex. The more they spend, the more they can skim.
It's like the regulated power industry being guaranteed a rate of return on capital investment. The incentive is to tear down perfectly functional base load power plants and build useless wind and solar plants, which will have to be supplemented by new base load plants. Follow the money, it always leads to answers.
It's jews, bro. There's a concerted effort by the lowest IQ cohort of yids to breed as many as possible, and they do this with state subsidy, with private courts, as well as youth camps and community orgs. Now, there's a pretty high prevalence of inbreeding in these arranged marriages but that's not really an issue for them (other than medically, of course).
The jewish congregations with the highest TFR are not especially likely to attend college, and I'm not sure what state subsidies you're referring to outside of Israel? (Haredi & hasidim also aren't the lowest-IQ cohorts, by the way- that title probably goes to yemeni or ethiopian jews. Genetically the former are largely ashkenazim and test pretty well at school, when they bother to attend.)
You know it's the long nose tribe, surely? Well, what I can say is that the whole dream of neofeudal domination by these 80 IQ nepobabies is a deranged fantasy of theirs. The requirements of an advanced technical civilization are simply beyond the abilities of brownoids to maintain, let alone actively develop. They fell for every jeet scam, and are motivated almost entirely by their irrational racial hatred of Whites, meanwhile their critical capital infrastructure is in the midst of an eliminationist coup by the security regime and the best they can do is media theatrics. And that's not even considering their actual rivals, who are genuinely independent of them, ie the DPRK and Iran; even China and Russia to large degrees. All that to say, this cultural state is a deeply expensive policing project that takes the full attention of the shabbos intel cunts to maintain, and they're not very White there anymore. Even setting aside the competency crisis' deep effects on the puppet regime, there is the simple reality that they no longer have effective narrative control over the public. At least 40% of the American public, for instance, is presently aware of the connections between j intel agencies and sexual blackmail networks like Epstein, Diddy, nxium and so on. Their oligarchy is exposed, and now they will attempt all manner of hysterics and theatrics to defend it, but the old game is over. Nobody under 50 wants them to exist on this planet anymore, they burned their own pet leftists with this most recent stint of murderous barbarism in Palestine.
I sure don't understand how this works for the overlords, long term. Eventually don't you run out of capable servants? Think Indira Gandhi but on a social/societal level rather than a political one.
Evil can be very stupid. The system worked for a while, but now the snowball is escaping down the hill and I think a lot of what's going on is just momentum and the greedy taking what they can get.
Yes. This is one of the main arguments against various grand overarching elite conspiracy theories. The elites would have to be both 200-IQ 5D-chess playing machiavellian masterminds and also suicidal imbeciles. Doesn't mean we don't need new elites.
Why just today I was joking about an essay title: "When Must We Hit Them?"
Many are asking this question.
Hurting those weaker than yourselves to feel like men. Pathetic.
More like to save civilization. But ok, retard.
Nah, you're just sadists. Next it will be wanting to marry little girls.
Accusation is projection.
Ask African American men, they are the experts at that.
Absolutely right. Feminism, No-fault divorce, The Pill and so-called "Free Love" have ruined us.
As a baby boomer born in the early fifties, negotiating that "liberated" landscape has been mostly confusing, lonely and depressing, in ALL its twists and turns. And here in Canada we have already 20 percent (and climbing) of deaths self-scheduled through politically correct euthanasia. Where we go from here is anybody's guess.
The MAID program is a whole other level of evil. 64,000 and counting, almost all white. In 2027 it will be made available solely on the basis of mental illness.
Trying to find a video I saw a couple of days ago: that doctors are being mandated to offer MAID, unsolicited by the patient.
On the other hand, that's probably 60,000 fewer Liberal voters. Even before mental illness becomes a qualification.
they bring in new liberal voters at a much faster rate to compensate.
Well written.
There is no solution other than the collapse of this cucked culture or its destruction by internal or external forces. Most likely it will just be displaced by the extant non-cucked cultures. Good night, white race.
I think it's quite possible for the culture to change. It's gone through immense shifts in the recent past. No reason it can't change in other directions. And, I think we're already seeing the signs of that, though I admit I err on the side of optimism.
Well I hope you are right John. There will need to be a big change, fast. But you are right. Such things can and do happen.
Culture in the West, has never ever moved rightward, only leftward. And that leftward movement is accelerating at an advanced pace. Young White women are becoming ever more hard left and ever more HATE HATE HATE towards White men. Indeed women of all races find higher IQ disgusting in men; and desire low IQ dominance. The most likely scenario is the complete collapse and elimination of Whites across the Globe.
The leftward drift of Western culture is a relatively recent phenomenon of the last couple centuries, and has already started reversing itself.
Young women are crazy, yes. The young men are shifting right very rapidly however, and that's what actually matters.
A lot of young men voting in the recent blue wave.
As for the RW young men, they can just be avoided. They obv aren't the only ones who matter. A man who wants to control a woman is no good and should be avoided. Not safe for women or girls to be around a 'very right wing" man
Defeatism. The culture moved far to the right on economics for decades after it became clear how badly left wing ideas worked.
If only White women voted, Trump would have won 48 states.
No blackpilling.
How often does culture improve? That is the evolutionary problem, change is rarely healthy, and often fatal.
A remnant population will survive. Some people in Slovakia and Poland have clearly had enough. Even Denmark is fighting back. Just don't look to the USA or the other Five Eyes nations for leadership.
Look at Russia, 2025 is the year of the family. If any country needs a revival of the family it is them after the civilization ending 80 years of communism.
Denmark despises the US rightwing.
The white race isn't going extinct, but the territory is very likely going to shrink.
Look man I understand that you might be very depressed about this as a lot of people are. But this is NOT ACADEMIC. I don’t think the last part of your comment is helpful.
The solution is to remove from power the current regime, nothing else will even matter.
The Harvey Weinstein story is a bit more nuanced, yes it is true the women who engaged in the transaction to advance their career knew what they were doing but there were women who did not engage in prostitution and their careers were nuked as a consequence. So it is s mistake to portray Weinstein as a “me, too” victim. It is true that other men were bictims, however
Weinstein was absolutely a scumball, but that's Hollywood. They all knew what they were getting into. It was impossible for them not to know, because everyone knew.
Precisely. If you don't like the ante, don't sit at the table.
I'd actually appreciate a thorough, non-biased overview of l'affaire Weinstein. My understanding is that he: a) traded sex for casting, b) blacklisted actresses who refused, c) got falsely accused of actual rape though was certainly guilty of coercion as noted above, and d) was pretty good at his job- ie getting good movies made. Do I have it more or less correct?
That sounds pretty accurate to me.
People have been noticing that Hollywood starlets got a whole lot uglier after he got imprisoned. Exhibit A, Zendaya.
and studio profits declined dramatically.
I think so. Candace Owens has interviewed him recently, in the context of an appreciation of these same discernments.
Fascinating. She interviewed him in prison?
By telephone. She did a whole series of interviews with him: go to her YouTube channel and find them in her playlists Harvey Speaks.
Did he blacklist actresses who refused? I thought I read at the time about actresses who said no and their careers were fine.
What are you even talking about. Their careers got nuked because they sucked.
If they were any good they wouldn’t need to sleep with Weinstein.
They knew very well, there is no other way. They just complained to get more money because as expected, they couldn’t succeed as actresses. And there is no amount of power Weinstein could have used to change that.
Typical reality denial of women and you fall into the victim trap.
Weird how the ones who got nuked weren't the ones complaining. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong?
Weirder still, just when there were starting to move on onto male actors and child actors having been subjected to Weinstein-like "deals", the Hollywood-support for #metoo just vanished.
It was the same over here. When Swedish women who had been subjected to actual assaults and rapes by darkskins started appearing in the ranks of #metoo, it disappeared inside a week.
One could almost believe it was centrally planned and orchestrated...
Somehow all the concern over rape culture evaporates the moment attention focuses on actual rape cultures.
Similar to how we had that trend of Asians complaining about being assaulted back.... during COVID I think? In any case, the trend vanished as soon as people started to look at just who was assaulting the Asians.
Mixed bag on that one
in any case, simping for Weinstein is not the answer
Who's doing that?
Not very long ago, I ran across a fertility graph that broke down fertility by political affiliation in the US. It showed that Conservative females had a fertility of 2.1, while Liberal women were much lower. I think this is more proof that you are on the right track with this article. By the way, I love the artwork
Yep. Dutton talks about this a lot. Libs are going extinct.
they control education to prevent that.
What happens if you keep killing microbes with sanitizer of ever decreasing concentration? The bacteria just adapt, generation after generation. They're just breeding the most lib-resistant people.
This is the flaw in importing Mexicans to vote blue.
Maybe 70% convert to Lib culture. Lib win?
But the converts convert to not having children.
The 30% who reject the libs will be resentful at the libs trying to destroy their culture and will vote hard red.
They will also have lots of children.
After a generation, the libs will have lost the advantage.
Haha, exactly. The same thing is happening in Germany. Well assimilated migrants are overwhelmingly voting AfD, because they cannot stand the muslim migrants who arrived after 2014.
Which is why any path to improvement lies through the destruction of the NEA.
... and the Dept of Ed.
The ED is a pimple on the ass of an ugly 300 lb creature. The teacher unions are an actual problem but they wouldn't even exist without widespread management failure.
Like other unions in the US, they were handed power by government. And poor management to some extent. Wilson instituted rule by experts, which quickly became rule by rulers
It's not about controlling education. Smarter people just lean liberal.
Focusing on relationships between the sexes might obscure more direct causal factors.
I’m sure there are better sources, but I’m just messing around on my phone with an idea. HPV vaccine uptake is much higher on the liberal end, and many reports of linked fertility issues with that one.
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&context=ysphtdl
Teen pregnancy was pretty flat across decades until HPV vaccine rolled out.
As always, though, excellent and well written article.
That's certainly an interesting possibility. They sabotage themselves in many ways.
"Conservative females had a fertility of 2.1..."
Every woman born after 1960 is a feminist. I don't care how socially conservative they claim to be when its about "savin da baybeez" or whatever bleeding-heart cause they advocate, at the end of the day, they're just as sold out on the basic premises of feminism as any leftist. I know, i've seen it in my own circle.
If what i say were NOT true, Conservative females would have a fertility much closer to 5-6. Leftist (white) women are dying out because they've mostly moved on from marriage period. It's "Conservative" girls who most embody what JC talks about in the OP these days. They still love the status of being "traditional" — as long as they can still go to college and have a high-dollar career doing some irrelevant make-work and spend most of their free time doing anything BESIDES actually tending their own households.
That's true. Radical feminist ideology from the 1970s is completely mixed into the mainstream now. No one detects or questions it because it's simply the water we swim in. Sadly and ironically there is nothing Radical feminism hates more than natural femininity and the roles and responsibilities (and the limits!) that come with that.
Hence the proliferation and popularity of the Kickass Conservative Gal™ — these dime-a-dozen, pink-cowboy-boots type female commentators who come right off of some copying-machine at Hillsdale College and trickle straight into a cushy job at Fox, Newsmax or the Blaze.
That’s actually worse than the libs because at they least they usually are well educated and somewhat smart (in a women way).
I do agree that conservatives women are very caricatural nowadays because they don’t make sense in the current legal environment.
I'm not sure i understand which you mean are "usually well-educated and somewhat smart"? ConGals or LibGals?
In either case, the distinction is irrelevant. Both groups end up too-smart-by-half and rush to fill some position where they can safely lecture others about how much they suck without having to do too much actual work. Both groups mainly flow into their respective political machinery; since the Left has more of them than the (so-called) Right, the overflow fill out corporate HR departments.
Well I don’t disagree with that.
I’m talking about the liberal women, which are the ones who go through college.
What I mean is that since they have more knowledge and are better trained for reasoning, if you are very careful about their emotional state, you at least have some chance of bringing them to a rational position on some things.
It is a slow and tiring process but it can work.
Of course it would be preferable to not have to do that but at least that’s a possibility.
If you fool around with a conservative and she has some feminist ideas (or at least play the game with the feminist playbook) you probably won’t be able to reason with them at all.
Either way it’s going to be a pain in the ass and major waste of time but that’s something to consider.
Personally I just think that if a man truly want to partner with a woman he just cannot accept her working and having too many social groups that could influence her.
That’s if the goal is to have kids and build something.
Otherwise one can just keep them around until they become too annoying. But it means no marriage, no merging of anything. Basically a roommate that you have sex with.
It's because being subservient, modest and quick to forgive/beneath men was never natural. It was pushed onto women. Obv women with choice overwhelmingly reject it.
Femininity (as defined by patriarchy) is awful and stifling for women. Maybe that's why feminists hate it.
Patriarchy never defined femininity and what it means to be female. Mother Nature did. Radfems (and myopic liberals) declared war on both, and how did that turn out for everyone?
Politics aren't genetic. Many children go to university and progress past their parents' politics.
"the truth is that the most misogynistic men are often precisely the ones with the most sexual experience. In order to succeed sexually, they had to cast aside their simp programming, and embrace their inner rapist, something they had been told their entire lives was evil. Then, to their horror, they found that women actually love it ..."
I was too delighted by my success to question the method or it's implications- it was only after a divorce forced my reeling mind to search for answers that I became bitter. Finding the manosphere and learning what women are actually like, I became disillusioned. I learned that women admire and respect things that I disdain, and they disdain that which I admire.
It's pretty brutal, man. The trick is to love them in spite of that - the way you love cats despite knowing they're sadistic little serial killers.
Yeah, but I can RESPECT a serial killer!
to me women have much in common with cats, but I think overall cats are better companions.
that is very good. I'm with my "nth" wife but I don't care to own those land sharks called cats.
As always, I am in awe of the writings of John Carter, and the quality of his commentariat. Regarding a macroscale solution to the war of the sexes, please consider both the black pill and the white pill:
The black pill: I read many many years ago the work of an anthropologist who studied what occurred when prior civilizations granted political rights and sexual freedom to women. He reviewed the record of every civilization available to him, and found that women’s liberation led without exception to the total collapse of said civilization within three generations. His message was clearly a black pill of total doom, worsened now by the runaway forces of greed X technology leading toward both Armageddon and a global prison planet.
The white pill: The alternative requires divine intervention; the incentive for God to intervene is simple: God desires pussy at a spiritual level every bit as much as men desire pussy at a physical level. The key is for men (specifically men) to utterly reject the pagan barbarian masculinity that refuses to let our hearts and minds be female in relation to God. If enough qualified men make this offer, not only would Western human sexuality spontaneously re-polarize, but our entire planet would become pregnant with a cosmic civilization.
Feel free to call me a religious nutjob, but know that I’ve given the last 29-years of my life letting my heart be pregnant with what would be needed to put this empirically to the test on a planetary scale. All it takes is for the Bridal Oath to go viral on a planetary scale, backed by a specially designed Kibbutz to serve as the unfertilized ovum of a cosmic civilization. So please help put my lunacy to the test. I’m too busy with other aspects of the upcoming test to start my own substack at this time. But do know, John, that if you simply reposted this comment as a new open thread, it could be a tremendous help in getting this put to the test.
Interesting concept.
Certainly the total destruction of every society that emancipates women is a historical fact.
I suspect that what that will look like for us is actually just a collapse of liberal democracy as a political template, and the rapid rise of something very different in its place. Probably with a much stronger religious dimension.
Certainly the total destruction of every society that emancipates women is a historical fact.
Where can I read more about this?
On the blog of Arctotherium, of this parish. Search for “Review of J. D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture”. The book itself is wordy and repetitive, but fine if you enjoy that sort of thing.
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/review-of-j-d-unwins-sex-and-culture
Extraordinary. Thank you.
The anthropologist in question is JD Unwin and the book is “Sex and Culture”. Ed Dutton argues that the Connection between sexual liberation and decline is correlation but not causation. Still, the two are intimately linked and Unwin's book is a classic beloved by traditionalists everywhere. It's thicc but everyone should read it.
Cheers for that.
Thank you for saying something useful here
Unwin claims that women should have the same rights as men, and it is sexuality that needs to be controlled to maintain society.
“The key is for men (specifically men) to utterly reject the pagan barbarian masculinity that refuses to let our hearts and minds be female in relation to God.”
Thanks for doing your bit to demonstrate that tranny degeneracy was latent in Trinitarian Jesusolatry all along. It’s by the way however that biology refuted the cardiac theory of human being long ago. Next time, to be less wrong write “…to let our central nervous systems and minds be female in relation to God.” You’ll still be very wrong, as Šemitism always is, but at least you won’t make such a fool of yourself when promoting your effeminate lunacy.
I thank you aI thank you all for your honest comments which I address in my general comment below. And I thank you , EV Reka, for what was, by far, the most presumptuous comment of all, for it shows precisely all the types of prejudice that I face in trying to share this concept. For the record: 1) I utterly reject Trinitarian theology. 2) I deny that Jesus is God. 3) I reject Semitism, for its core error is to claim to be the Bride of God while failing to serve as the Womb of Gaea in the birthing of our true cosmic destiny. 4) I utterly reject transexuality, and attribute this scourge first and foremost to men refusing at a spiritual level to be female in relation to God. 5) What I wrote had nothing at all to do with gayness, effeminacy, or homosexuality, a presumption made by several others addressed in my general comment. 6) Regarding cardiac theory, I made clear in my post that I was speaking at a spiritual level, not the physical level, which my general comment also addresses. 7) In regard to being “less wrong,” not only did I mention the possibility of a formal empirical test of my main claim, but you utterly failed to demand that I put up existing empirical evidence in support of my paradigm. 8) Regarding lunacy, try seriously to keep a lunar calendar in some way for a year and see how much more balanced your thinking becomes; view it an experiment with yourself as guinea pig. I have no hard feelings, but I do ask that you be a bit less presumptuous, and perhaps pay more attention to the lunar cycle.
Well, this is comical. You’re not a trinitarian, but you’re more papist than the popes and their college of effeminate cardinals. You even have your very own muscular blood pump engulfed in flames and wrapped in thorns.
Now, please do everyone the favor of studying silence for a dozen + one lunations. You can begin on the first day of #1274. The birthday of the unconquered Sun follows the very next day. (No, not the 25th.)
It all sounds really weird at first, but then again, humanity is meant to be the church, which is the bride of Christ.
I thank you all for your honest comments, however mistaken many of them have been for one reason or another. The most common mistake, by far, was for people to consider what I wrote to be in some way gay, effeminate, or homosexual. These are all category errors, for the “Whole of Creation” is Female in relation to God, with echoes of that male/female relationship permeating all of creation right down to the relation of electrons and protons. In my worldview based on “Dual-Aspect Physics” (or what Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli called “dual-aspect monism” during their decades-long collaboration) human sexuality is itself a direct embodiment of the electromagnetic force of the inverse-spacetime continuum, which is why people so often use the terms, “electricity,” “sparks,” and “magnetism” when describing relations with our sexual partners. If we are going to “fix human sexuality,” it would be good to know its true root in Dual-Aspect Physics (DAP).
What I suggested was a reformulation of the old idea of “The Church” being collectively the Bride of God, extended and updated (as per my best understanding of DAP) into a vision of all humanity serving as the Womb of Gaea in the birthing of a cosmic civilization in a pure cisgendered heteronormative (CGHN) relationship with God. Its echo in the microcosm is the old mystical idea of offering “One’s Heart” as a “Womb to God” (i.e. the whole one’s body, heart, mind, and soul) so that one may birth some facet of this cosmic civilization. Women already serve as female in a physical way, and in a healthy culture, know well to submit themselves to their male partner. This femaleness of women as just described is also a high quality metaphor of what men need to learn and accept in their Relationship with God. If men truly “Woke Up” to this, the entire totality of “woke” libtardism would melt like an ice cube at noon in Texas under the hot July sun.
For context, know that under DAP, the "Cycle of Yugas/Ages" is not just woo-woo mysticism, but an actual literal time-loop locally for planet Gaea to regenerate a pristine planet a few thousand years back if men fail to wake up to this deeper reality and commit in sufficient numbers to trigger a total paradigm change before we all blow ourselves up. This time-loop is a basic fact known to many ancient cultures including the Hindu, Hopi, Mayan, and Navajo. It is also known to Orthodox Rabbis and clearly alluded to in a few places in the Hebrew Bible. The “Young-Earth Creationism” of Bible thumpers mistakes this fertility cycle for the quantum-computationally guided multi-billion-year evolution/maturation of planet Gaea. This is but one of the myriad errors ensuing from Romanized Christianity spreading its corrupt faith by the sword and genociding the entire rich ecosystem of early paleo-Christian belief, and these errors are why Western civilization as a whole is under a curse of mass death.
To finish the context, ponder: a) the absurdity of our varied energy crises in relation to the sun’s continuous output of 400 trillion terawatts of power, of which 25,000 terawatts could be easily harvested via orbiting solar-power satellites to put a billion people/year into outer space with two tons of supplies each, and b) the absurdity of people sterilizing themselves due to supposed overpopulation when the planet Jupiter, by itself, contains sufficient raw material (once suitably fusioned and configured) for an ecosystem with a billion times the capacity of Gaea in the earliest emergence of a Dyson Sphere. The time-loop is God’s fallback plan: Does anyone here think that He would just let us ruin the planet and lock ourselves down in a global panopticon police state equivalent to a global menopause? This is why He empowers our planetary demiurge to just let it all go down in rivers of fire and blood in a global menstruation pursuant to the reboot of a pristine planet.
Despite my offer of a formal empirical test of my claims, not a single comment mentioned anything about that, nor did anyone demand any of the empirical evidence already accrued in support of my understanding of what it means to be the Bride of God. And so I offer now, the blue pill and red pill: The blue-pill placebo lets people continue thinking/commenting as usual. The red pill is the 19K-word thesis that is the “Head of my Memetic Baby,” just now ready for publication after 29 years of nurturance. It contains the first of the 12 categories of already acquired empirical evidence transcendent to mundane causation. It buries the mantra that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” under the Mountain of Evidence that shows how the entirely mainstream understanding of the life of a supergiant star is an ideal metaphor for the life of the the Western socioeconomic system. It shows the non-linear time-relation whereby the West evolved from a socioeconomic protostar 575 years ago to the brink now of core collapse, leading by default to a supernova (i.e. nuclear Armageddon) followed by a neutron core (i.e. a global panopticon police state). The 14.2K words of sections II-VI document all of the varied sub-metaphors in such exhaustive detail, that this thesis would be a black pill of total doom but for the other 4.8K words introducing the possibility our inducing divine intervention via our role as the Bride of God.
Lastly, I am fully aware that you, John Carter, and your followers are a bunch of hard-core rationalists fully committed to CGHN sexuality. This is why I still instinctively trust you all so much despite the many errors in the first round of comments. Said comments exemplify why I’m so hesitant in starting my own substack. But if I could get you John, and your followers, to swallow that red pill without prejudice and let its message truly sink in, I’d be happy to hire some of you as the funds arrive to moderate my substack. For now, suffice to say that reading said thesis could easily be like the swallowing of a huge dose of LSD or ayahuasca. For those unwilling to be female in relation to God, it could be a very bad trip leading to urgent efforts to barf up what you just read in a vain attempt to restore your old single-aspect rationality. But for those willing to truly surrender to be the Bride of God under DAP, it could be a truly glorious trip at the lynchpin of planetary healing. When I mentioned the idea of an open thread, it was implicitly in relation to this red pill; the offer still stands.
Liked for originality.
That was my reaction tbh
The whole “bride of Christ” thing does sound a bit gay.
Great article. Covers everything. "Someone should take this and run for office", he said, laughing bitterly
Ha. I can't imagine anyone getting elected on this platform…
Ok but *someone* will have to change the political landscape.
Indeed. But it might not be by getting elected.
Gah. There are few things that make me glad to be old but this is one. It makes it easier just to check out. I think it is going to take nothing short of a religious revival to fix this. Not being religious myself, I don't know how this works but someone needs to step up. Charlie Kirk is dead so he will have to be replaced but more critical is someone who can fill his role for young women which is where the main problem is.
I think we'll see a second religiosity a la Spengler to impose order on this. It won't be pretty.
Externally enforced religion is never pretty and has never led to a glorious society. Not to say it would necessarily be worse than the current externally enforced state religion.
yehudi religion is the cause of this problem. Liberalism is just a christian heresy. We can't fix our women without fixing our civilization, which means ousting the enemy tribes from our lands.
Thank GOD I got married in the mid 80's to a Perfect Wife. And fortunately, my 3 daughters have been in happy (heterosexual) marriages for quite a while to good men.
Son ... is your archetype of simp. Currently (in his late 30's) dating a tatoo'd, metallic monster who treats him like a drug factory (provider). And nothing I can do about it. He won't listen.
But overall, this article mirrors my perception of the American Office. Too many coworkers fit all the stereotypes noted. And after all, stereotypes exists for a reason - they usually mirror what we see. Regardless of whether you like the stereotype or not.
Love when you post a long one. Thanks!
Sorry to hear about your son, man. It's rough for young men out there. So many of them lose their way.
May I ask a very hard question: is this pure happenstance, or is there something in your (plural) parenting that imparted wisdom to your daughters but not your son?
Do the female members of your family shrink themselves so that you and the other men can feel big and clever?
Glad your son seems to have escaped your poor example.
Glad women have more options today than what wife had when settling for you in the 80s.
Imposing "all stick/no carrot marriage on men" won't work if marriage-avoidant men can claim to be gay or trans. There's also the problem that most women won't accept many of the single men, unless polygyny becomes legalized, in which case the most desirable men will have multiple wives; exhausting their time, resources, energy, and sanity.
I suspect female disgust at the prospect of being assigned a gooner would probably do more to inhibit such a policy than anything else.