Some have noted that fathers have begun treating their daughters as if they were sons, as this US Army commercial demonstrates:
However, a more rational approach would be to decide early on to encourage daughters to marry young and start having children, while encouraging sons to forgo having their own children and instead invest emotionally and financially in their nieces and nephews. Even with decades of feminism daughters make poor sons, but the deck is now profoundly stacked in their favor regarding parenthood and custody. The sons and parents could financially support the daughters having children without creating a legal incentive for them to blow up the family and sue for child support. The family would at the same time strongly encourage the daughter to remain married to the father of her children, as this is very much to the children’s benefit. While financial support from a father creates an incentive to divorce and expel the father from the household, financial support from grandparents and uncles could be used as an incentive to keep the family together. In this way a family might have the same number of grandchildren overall but avoid the disadvantages of a system which strongly discourages fatherhood.
I’m not advocating this approach, but I can see where given the system we have built many might decide it is to their advantage to follow it. This is defacto what is already occurring in many families as a response to the unequal legal treatment of fathers and mothers, and we can see this for example in Mentu’s story.
Humans are adaptive creatures. Even without real awareness of how the current system favors this approach, families are gravitating toward it.
The reason for this phenomenon is the oft-touted “end of men” man-haters craved, and Anglo society is realizing. With the young male in the Anglos here increasingly finding he has no hope of a wife, a job, an education, happiness, yet the female is not only given those things but is legislatively protected in having those things, the evaporation of males from Anglo society will only ccelerate.
Fuck when was the last time an American president even had a son?
The end of men has arrived, now the culture will have to deal with the consequences.
1.) squeeze more blood from a dwindling supply of stones (man up, forced work, GAME)
2.) eliminate the surplus men entirely and create Nicolas teslas “queen bee” society (imprisonment, conscription, sex selective abortion and male extermination.)
Think it can’t happen? Just watch.
There isn’t enough economic opportunity left to support more than 1 more generation after the mellenials have consumed their inheritances from the prosperous boomer generation. As we all know women rarely save for retirement, neither do they have life insurance in geat numbers. That leaves the wealth of the boomer generation almost wholly consumed by 2050, what is going to the generation after that?
The economic crunch thatbis coming from an entire generation of millennial poverty single mothers, wealth destroying divorcees, and childless spinsters wth no savings is going to force one of the two above solutions.
Men are useless? Let’s see how far the meme can be pushed by the upper middle class whites, won’t survive long once daddybis in the grave, the inheritanceis consumed and the car breaks down.
Dalrock, take a look at this:
“Full-time employment may be driving mothers to spend, according to the latest Consumer Expenditure Survey released by the U.S. Dept. of Labor.
Not only do working mothers spend more on childcare expenses compared to their unemployed counterparts ($6,864 vs. $2,962), they spend more on eating out ($3,092 vs. $2,606) and on household maintenance and repairs ($3,427 vs. to $2,300).
The Bureau also found that working mothers shell out more for transpiration and car repairs ($3,094 compared to $2,652), because they’re clearly commuters. The only place where things evened out among both groups was at the dry cleaners, where working mothers spend a mere $8 more than unemployed mothers.”
(Jill Krasny, Heres Proof That Working Mothers Spend More Just To Have A Career, Business Insider, September 11).
Following from my earlier thread, I guess I should clarify my point and say that while men may push their daughters to achieve in the same way as their sons, they do not appear to impose the same sort of discipline on their daughters as they would on their sons. Hubby does not take shit from sonny, inducting him early in the ways of men (ie not shitting on close male allies, particularly daddy) while he is softer, much softer on daughter. I know lots of men like hubby who want to “toughen” their sons up to face the big bad world, but don’t think it is appropriate to do the same for daughters. As a result, daughters grow up to be over-achievers without the restraint that men were brought up to exhibit.
If one wanted to sinply push genes into the future, wouldn’t a more effective strategy being knocking up gals and either keeping an alterate persona and/or be judgement proof via minimalism and not maintaining any real job before knocking the gal? Seems like the guy with 30ish kids is winning the genetic race and both he and his kids are on the public dole.
They turn into entitled princesses who end up bankrupt at 45 and eating cat food in their retirement. The reason a father cannot discipline his daughternis the same reason he can’t discipline his wife, because SHE is the head of the household in Anglo society. He is a wimp, a tool, surplus, unnecessary from societal standpoint, and his daughters know this through how wife treats husband, at home, tv, in public, in society.
Fuck when was the last time an American president even had a son?
Reagan had 2 sons, a righteous one adopted with Jane Wyman and a total leftwing fag sired au naturel with Nancy.
Bush the 1st had several sons… including W, a RINO like his father….and we all know how that turned out.
OK, I could do this with my daughters, but I would need five men from somewhere for my daughters to marry, so somebody is going to have to not encourage their sons to forgo marriage. Therein lies the inherent flaw in this model.
my sister is a selfish bitch so NO!
….”a more rational approach would be to decide early on to encourage daughters to marry young and start having children, while encouraging sons to forgo having their own children and instead invest emotionally and financially in their nieces and nephews”……
This reminds me of an anthropological study I read about some time ago regarding how sexuality shaped human society. The study cited a few African tribes (now I stress that not all African communities are like that in case I get tarred by the racist brush) where promiscuity was high amongst both men and women. As a result, men would not support women who purportedly had their children, nor the children themselves, since they could not be sure they indeed were the fathers. Their society developed into a matrilineal one (neither patriarchical nor matriarchical) where the duty of suporting women and their children fell onto the brothers and/or maternal uncles. The reasoning was that men were more likely to support children related to them by blood – ie the children of sisters (more likely half sisters since the only thing they could be sure of was that they both shared a mother). Of course this system only worked due to the large number of childen women bore, ensuring a higher likelihood of an even distribution between male and female children. Not sure what happened in “families” with a disproportinate number of daughters or no sons. This situation also created a perverse incentive for men – too horifying to even mention or contemplate, though I’m sure it must have happened.
Good post elaine, if you expand your research you will also find hat almost every one of the matrilineal tribes with “loose sexuality” was dominated and exterminated by a patriarchal one. I make no defense of patriarchy as it is as bad for the averag man as anything, but the facts speak for themselves. As matrilineal societies lead to a lack of investment by men, and weak cohesion on the macro level.
@Sunshinemary
1) It doesn’t have to be a good/wise macro model to be an adaptive micro model. It only has to work better for the families which select it than their alternatives.
2) The shortage today is of marriage worthy women, not men, and I don’t see this changing absent a massive cultural and ultimately legal shift.
@Shameful says:
This is very much class dependent. Most middle class and above parents won’t want their grandchildren growing up on welfare. They want productive successful grandkids and ultimately great grandkids who remain in their own class or perhaps even move higher. The strategy you describe is viable however for those who are already in the lower classes or who don’t mind having their offspring fall into them. As with the adaptive strategy in the OP, we already see this being utilized.
@Dalrock
I’m just pointing out a more viable solution and one already employed. I challenge any man to look at his son and tell him “Son, you will never have a family and best you can do is help support your sisters kids. System is against you, and you arent man enough or smart enough to figure out a real plan or move to greener pastures”
If a man wants to pursue an R based reproduction strategy this is the time and place. If a guy wants to pull a K strategy then he has to put some thought in and leave the US. Besides our sisters are from the same crucible of feminism no improvement could come from this. At least the other strategies have the chance of sex to go with the possibility of slavery instread of just straight obligation with nothing in return.
they do a version of what you recommend in Africa. Doesn’t work out very well there
Stonelifter says:
1) I don’t recommend it (as I stated in the OP).
2) It doesn’t have to work out well at a macro level to be an adaptive strategy at the micro level, as I mentioned in my reply to Sunshinemary. Those who want something different at a macro level should work towards changing the incentives.
3) What is done is Africa is different. The key difference is this would still be a marriage based model, with the biological father living in the household. This would be possible in the west because for the MC and above most women aren’t having very many children as it stands. If daughters have 4 children instead of 2 and sons have 0 instead of 2, it can net the same number of grandchildren. The model in Africa is everyone has as many kids as they can but men only invest in their sister’s kids since they don’t have certainty over paternity. The sons still have kids in Africa, but they are the focus of another family. The sons of the family adopting the strategy I’m outlining wouldn’t have any children, because child support is what men have strong incentives to avoid.
Life strategy as expounded by Bedtime Stories
It has some merit–no sarcasm.
However; it strikes me that many men are already taking this strategy, if we remove bloodline from the criteria. They marry/sleep with the “sister” (not implying incest, just extending the metaphor), and treat the children of another man as nephews and nieces. They’re called step-dads, and we accuse them of being beta pushovers for the carousel and frivolous divorce.
Cane Caldo says:
Yes. This is an evolutionary improvement on that strategy. It has the benefits of:
1) The children being blood relatives, as much as possible without him actually being the father.
2) Much lower risk of developing an emotional bond only to be kicked out of the kids’ lives. This is still possible, but the brother/sister bond is more durable than the average marriage bond today, and the incentives are working the other way.
3) He is there from day 1, not inheriting another man’s broken family.
4) Much less likely to be legally forced to pay child support.
The main practical downside is: what does the man do regarding a wife? Does he become a player? A serial monogamist? Celibate? Married but childless?
The spiritual downside is marriage is the only safe harbor for sex, so only the last two practical options apply, and the last one not so if Catholic. However, 90% plus of Christians can’t be bothered with biblical sexual morality right now anyway. If they were, we wouldn’t be where we are now.
“The end of men has arrived, now the culture will have to deal with the consequences.”
Men created civilization. The fewer men who are interested in maintaining and advancing civilization…then civilization will go backwards. “The end of men” means the end of civilization.
Yea, in a way. It depends on your definition of ‘end’. If you are implying some sortof mad max scenario or a George Romeo zombie apocalypse in real life, think that’s a major stretch. If you mean a decline in wealth, standard of living and a great deal else to levels similar to the former soviet union, I’d say you are probably making a very reasonable prediction.
Since it is men with daughters who are pushing feminism, the best strategy for reversing the situation is to make it clear to fathers exactly what the real consequences are.
Let these fathers know that their precious little princesses will be pumped and dumped by PUAs and then left as childless old spinsters whose genes die with them.
How have the daughters of powerful men turned out?
Lets look at recent presidents.
One of the Bush twins is rapidly heading towards spinsterdom . Barbara Bush is now over thirty, single, childless, and working for some liberal non-profit agency. The other Bush twin is married, but remains childless past the age of 30.
Chelsea Clinton is nearing her mid thirties and although she is married, she remains childless.
Any body remember Patti Davis? Ronald Reagan’s daughter who posed nude for playboy and ended up as a childless divorced spinster.
Reagan’s other daughter Maureen married and divorced three times having no children before she died.
What will happen to the Obama daughters? I can’t imagine any man wanting to marry them if they turn out anything like their harradin mother.
“If you mean a decline in wealth, standard of living and a great deal else to levels similar to the former soviet union”
Yes. Violence, crime, gated communities, feral young men, poverty. What we have now, only worse.
Dalrock’s suggestion may advance genes, but it doesn’t preserve family identity. Only males conserve the y-chromosome, which tracks with the family surname.
Good comment, Justinian.
Of whatever good comes from reading PUAs, that is the best of it.
@Dalrock
But as you note, that prescription–even if generally good–offers no solution to the problem. Is there an alpha apex fallacy in this; that all husbands and future ex-husbands are alphas, and this solution spares betas from frivorce, while also giving the beta an outlet for his paternal instincts?
If so, this is your solution to managing the decline; not addressing the problem. Or am I misunderstanding? It seems like one plausibly noble strategy, but I can’t help but think this has to sound like the perfect storm to MRA folks.
[D: It isn’t my solution. It is an acknowledgement of the incentives we have put in place today.]
By the way: where are the Army ad man’s sons? I guess mom was too busy working to bear more than one child, or adopt.
Evolution is amoral.
The major psychological hurdle for this strategy will be the loss of the family name.
Turning your sons in beta providers for your daughters? Must be the stupidest idea I have heard in manosphere. Are you a feminist troll?
The mans imperative is to carry on his y chromosome – to have sons and grandsons from sons. Raising daughters was always a burden and just a social responsibility in patriarchal times – a responsibility to raise daughters so that sons of others might marry too.
The part on where daughters must be brought up to marry young not fallow carreer-spinsterdom is valid.
Fight for the rights of your sons to have sons from women who wont divorce them, change laws, boycott state, marry in church but not register with state, leave anglosphere, go totally underground, find whatever solution you can, but do not abandon a fundamental God given birthright and do not deny it for your sons, otherwise you have lost already.
Raising your daughter as a son would entail teaching her responsibility, to make informed decisions, anticipate their outcome and when needed, face the consequences and learn from them.
All generally considered basic core characteristics in defining the essence of what it means to be a human.
Taking them out yields a correspondingly dysfunctional individual, and by extension, society.
@Dalrock
I’d say more, nearing 100% when it comes to women. Actually, there’s a general attitude of being crazy if you actually follow out what it says in Scripture. This is no exception. Most all “Christian” women will eliminate any man who doesn’t already have “experience”. Not to mention, when they do care about sexuality it always has to do with the MEN, never with the women.
If women were called out and dealt with regarding their sin, we wouldn’t be where we are now. That goes for every problematic issue in marriage.
SSM says.
Well, I’d like the sons to meet the daughters of women like you. And I like my Daughters in laws. Particuarly as they do not let her get away with being an idiot — which all of us are capable of.
Slave to your sister(s) or slave to the State. There is no difference in this method or the current one being offered by marriage 2.0. You’re still working and sacrificing so that others get to have children and get to take you to the cleaners at the same time. If I was, just before birth, given the choice between State slavery and being a worker bee for my family, I would choose abortion.
Fix the core of the issue, not the symptom. Not to mention the problem that the family name dies with the son, as the daughter joins the other family. This is suicidal, with the added benefit of having to work like a POS before you die.
@ballista74
“Most all “Christian” women will eliminate any man who doesn’t already have ‘experience’.”
While I sense that this is very much true (generally speak, of course), I’m not aware of any academic study that suggests that this is true.
I would chose to agree with you, but re-define the approach for this statement.
I would argue instead, that women, not matter how “Christian,” “Churchian” or “Atheist,” cannot escape their sub-conscious biological urges and will only be attracted to men who demonstrate behavioural features and confidence that is rarely obtained without sexual experience. Thereby, the large majority of women, including women who run in “Christian” circles, immediately reject, as a first impression, any man who does not have sexual experience as a potential sexual partner.
I’m sure there will be many who disagree with me, but I don’t feel as though a can blame women for following their biological instincts. Past generations agreed with me and instituted a shaming system to combat instinctive urges, for both men and women, with the intention of protecting society as a whole.
This is a great temp survival technique in a world gone mad. To me it looks like a way to keep men viable for the sake of civilization and steadying the population. Not something you do across the board as a society but one thing a paticular family can do. The solution will come when the selfish nature (normal) of women is incorporated into the functioning of a sane society where a woman will selfishly behave biblicaly.
Taking care of family is not neccesarily slavery if you can choose not to without the government coming down on you.
greyghost, the problem is that you’re telling your son that his basic premise to his entire existence, is not to provide for HIS children and His family, but for other peoples’ families. I can’t see the difference between this and State welfare. Rather abort the son and put more money into the daughter’s education and the welfare of her future children and save your, would be son, the pain of living a futile existence.
Liberal woman exhibits civilisational hypergamy:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023306.html
As Cornelius Vanderbilt once said while surveying his daughters’ children, “These children are very nice, but they aren’t Vanderbilts.”
the more i read this comments, the more i believe women act like Borg.. resistance is futile, you (men) will be assimilated!.. we can run but cannot hide.. since this situation doesn’t belong only to american wimminz.. but also in other countries as well, wimminz going deeper in the State welfare, for example, in italy we have a “Ministry for pair opportunities” (a smoke screen to hide women empowerment)- The minister is a woman Mara Carfagna, a former showgirl..
Now what i wish to tell you is that you should not think that all this mess belongs to america only.. but this is a real disease spreading in all the so called “advanced western-european economy/societies”.. it would be nice to know that many Dalrock’s followers are all over this nations as well so we may discuss deeper about this topics (i also noticed people from UK..) no one from Spain? France? Germany?
@David Collard
Conservatives often express bafflement as to why feminists don’t go after Islam.
I’ve tried to explain to fellow conservatives that Islam is the alpha religion and that is why feminists do not attack them in the same way that they attack Christians which is the current beta faith (during medieval times Christianity was alpha, but it is no longer).
Christianity fails the civilization-wide shit test and that is why it gets hated for imaginary crimes it no longer commits.
How can women have respect for a religion led by effeminate men? In the case of the Roman Catholic church, huges parts of clergy are homosexuals.
Christianity invites attacks through its own weakness.
I think some of it, Justinian, really is hypergamy. One female journalist wrote a while back that she had masturbated to Osama bin Laden, imagining him beating her for not covering up.
The other thing is that women may have an instinctive desire to placate conquerors or likely conquerors (women “tend and befriend”). At some level the woman in the photo may be getting ready to be, um, conquered.
I don’t agree, naturally, that Catholicism is a spent force. I think Benedict is a bit better than John Paul II, who was a pedestaliser of women and made nice to Islam. Benedict is less starry-eyed. But, yes, too many of the bishops and clergy are, or were, homosexuals, and they have done immense damage.
My wife and I were watching some coverage tonight of the Muslim riots and so on that occurred recently here in Australia, in Sydney. She told me that I would make a good Muslim, with my attitudes to women; and then came and sat on my lap.
If the argument is strictly about furthering the family line, then you also encourage your sons to marry and start families young. After that, whatever happens, happens. Even if he gets divorced, by 40 — a young age for a man — his children are adults.
This is of course dependent on how realistic it is for a young man in the middle of the alpha-beta bellcurve today to get a decent girlfriend.
Here’s an idea,a young deprived of the right to have and keep his own sons should support no one but himself,and Whilst not busy recreation,throw monkey wrenches into the machinery at every opportunity,instead of being Mr.fixit utilitarian.
Much more satisfactory.
“none for me?-none for you”
Bring it down.
Ybm says:
September 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Yea, in a way. It depends on your definition of ‘end’. If you are implying some sortof mad max scenario or a George Romeo zombie apocalypse in real life, think that’s a major stretch.
——————————————————-
Once again, you can just go drive through the ghetto and see an actual example of “the end”. The main reason the problems of the ghetto never get solved despite the vast quantities of money thrown at it is because there are no men there. Its mostly women and children (and the state) and we all know females are not accountable. Rather than “Mad Max”, its more like “ignorant and apathetic Max”
*I don’t know and I don’t care*
You see young able bodied black males sitting in the park all day like they are retired. Its a strange site if you don’t understand what you are looking at.
I think what you’ll find if you examine the current state of our Military is that it is male Generals with daughters who are allowing many of the integration changes in the military, including letting females in to Combat Arms roles and Ranger School.
@FITZ
Once again you and I disagree. Go check the money supply (measured by the pre 1980 government statistic reporting switch) since the beginning of QE1 all the way to now. Go read Bernake’s report and about endless QE to the tune of 40 Billion (40,000,000,000) a month. Now check out surplus supplies of corn and soy in America (the world’s biggest supplier of those two crops) and see how low it is. Now look at the world production of oil since 2005, it is flat lined and production has had no significant gains for 7 years.
Police will be paid until our dollar no longer exists. However they won’t be able to buy any food, or oil with that worthless fiat currency. Think about that.
Feminist Hater
You do understand these children are his blood relatives nieces and nephews. He can still knock up his own woman if he so chooses. But as you can see with out removing this madness of feminism from the law these crazy drills must be done just to survive. No solution or survival technique to feminism is a viable and sustainable way of life. No successful and growing society has at it’s core anything other than a father lead married house hold with children reguardless of race or country. And when ever the foundational structure deviates from that that society is doomed.
So your objections are normal and correct in a sane world but we here I would like to think are not a bunch of so-con and blue pill delusionist. In this world to have been born male is to have been born into slavery. men in this time have to survive and restore the proper civil order we will not ever enjoy life in a sustainable civil society. In other words no man today will eevr know life with out misandry. The choice is to be a mangina white knight, deny it is true (stay ignorant) accept it as normal, or red pill it and find a way to survive and then resist and actively fight it.
Entropy is My God
The police are an armed gang When things get so bad that police will not be paid they will not just volunteer to starve. They will do things like confiscate cars and homes due to violations of the law etc. John Wiley Price a city council member in Dallas has numerous luxery cars that was at one time conficated property. You can go on youtube and search police beating hand cuffed people and doing what ever completely above the law along with judges just making up law from the bench.
At present american are buying guns like crazy and the dirty little secret there is an air here of something major happening as in the SHTF. The bad guys are not neccesarly seen as criminals in the traditional sense but many will say they are more worried about a criminal government. Or a government to weak to concern themselves with anything other than themselves.
b-166-er
The scary thing about the ghetto in a collapse scenario is that ythe ghetto has a support mechanism to make it possible as a sustainable way of life. Public housing, food stamps, and welfare (cash) the collapse is when the money is not there any more. The scary thing is that the people are still there and they still want to eat. and all of those men at the ready to do the bidding for all of those baby mommas in need of a man to white knight for that love and pussy.
That is directly advising one’s sons to ‘forgo’ their own children and to put their time, energy and wealth into providing for their sisters’ children. It’s not so much that I would have the issue of a brother raising his sister’s children, were she to die, but rather that his own father would be teaching him to forgo his own family and place everything on the hopes that his own sister isn’t going to ditch them all in the end.
Sorry to say, but it’s still feeding the femquo. This will not change anything in the slightest, it’s just putting the nuclear switch in the hands of the daughter even more than it is now and still expecting the men to ‘man up’ and provide; and they don’t even get to fuck a slut for their time…
Fem Hater,
I’m not advising that you don’t marry and have children. If this is what you want, I think you should do it (with eyes wide open and choosing very carefully). It is what I want for my own son. But there are some men who look at that option and decide not to take the risk. For those men, some will have no interest in children. Others may elect to take a more direct interest in their nieces and nephews. Still others as Cane pointed out will marry a woman who already has children.
@Feminist Hater
You are thinking of this as a child support obligation. My guess is most families would handle this the way families typically do. The brothers would help out where they chose to, based on their own investment and perception of the need. This could be gifts for the kids, items needed for a new baby, or even just spending time with/caring for the kids. In family interactions when one part is getting help from another it comes with an expectation that the party getting helped treat the helper well. This is exactly what feminists set out to remove from marriage. They want men to support women with none of the traditional expectations which come from family arrangements (in this case marriage). They have done this for marriage, but it is much more difficult to do for parents and brothers.
I see the alternative suggestion to be little different than the current state of things. The man (son, in this case) serves the woman and has limited to no authority over her actions. They are to bear responsibility, but without the means or authority to establish order. He exists solely for the utility of the daighter. No sex (obviously), fork over your money and time, and make life easier for a woman who has turned away from marriage.
Shut up and do it, sis explained. Mom, dad and me will shame you if you don’t.
I’d never shackle my sons in this way.
Dal, the post states that the father should encourage his daughters to marry young and have children, that’s fine, it then goes on to state that fathers should encourage their sons to not have children or families but instead put their effort into helping the family raise the children from their daughter.
That’s a different spin from the usual ‘men going their own way’ theme. It’s men paying into the system through another means. A pseudo family for the son so that he still produces. In the end, what’s to stop the courts from coming up with a new law that directly places the son as the sole provider of his sister’s own children, should she divorce her husband? The courts will impute an amount on the son, should either the father or mother bail on the children, as the courts can now directly attribute him as a ‘father figure’ for the child or children. As the femtocracy increases, I cannot rule out that child support may come increasingly from grand fathers, brothers and any other man too close for comfort. Courts are already turning to grandparents for child support.
Then there’s still the matter of celibacy. He still gets to work as hard as a married man but gets nothing for it. Not even the minimal sex he would have got from a former carousel rider. His needs are not met, besides the need to be a ‘father figure’ but he still ain’t no real father. He’s just a meal ticket.
What’s the benefit of this solution? Is it to make those UMC fathers feel better about their choices to place their daughters over their sons? I just cannot see the benefit at all.
Dalrock
Your last to Feminist hater was very good. and explained things very well.
http://www.sundayworld.co.za/news/2012/08/27/vexatious—de-klerk-drawn-into-son-s-divorce-drama
You see… no man involved can escape unscathed from the bite of an angry femcunt.
What i get from the article is that a son forgoes marriage. but still has an emotional desire to be with children. he can chose to be with his own relatives. Do not believe the idea that he is shamed into it by his parents as a must but think of it as an emotional alternative to the desire to be a father to protect his son from being eaten by the beast. This is purely a technique to sooth the emotional loss a son has for not being legally allowed to be a father in his own right with out also being criminalized. The emotional soothing is the expectation of the appreciation of the VOLUNTARY emotional and financial support he (a family member) provides. Remember this is a family member a sister they took baths together sat down at the table for dinner lived together all of their lives an one or the other saw the sibling the day they were born into the family. This isn’t a practicle solution for the benefit of society it is just a way a young man born into hatred can feel appreciation for showing kindness to another human being in a world that hates men for being alive.
All this points up how increasingly atomized our society has become. FH raises the very real specter of government mandating what families used to do without being asked or expected.
In decades past, extended family was a very real part of one’s life. There were uncles, aunts, cousins and other more distant relatives in and out of your life. If you needed some help, other family members could be counted on. There was always a spinster aunt, a confirmed bachelor uncle or older cousin, or a married childless couple or two in the family. They all chose to invest time and money into the children of their relatives, mostly because they were family. They had much disposable income and chose to spend some of it on their extended families. They did it out of love and kindness, and to keep family ties.
FH’s comment also points up the deep distrust men have for women now. I share his concern that legislatures will continue defining relationships as advantageously to women as possible, so as to wring support from any nearby man. My state did away with common law marriage decades ago. Look for it to come back so women can get “palimony” from cohabiting men. The state will view this as shifting medical and other costs to men so that women as they age will not burden the system. Women consume far, far more healthcare costs than men This is why many older divorced men I know have female longtime companions but refuse to cohabit. He has his place and his finances; and she has hers.
Sister/babymama has a couple of thugspawn that her brother hangs with and buys gifts for every so often? He’s responsible for child support where no one else is around. Her parents are around? Her dad is responsible for child support. She’s got a male cousin who lives in the next town? He’s responsible for child support.
Legislatures will justify this by saying (1) it’s for the children; (2) responsible adults (i.e. men) need to step up to the plate and take care of the family members who cannot; (3) welfare, medicaid and medicare and SSI have been stressed to the breaking point for decades and something must be done to relieve it. That something means shifting costs to the wage earning men. But note: their responsibilities will be financial only. Any man stating “If I’m responsible financially, I want custody of the child so I can direct his/her instruction and upbringing” will be denied. The reply will be “The mother isn’t unfit, she’s just poor. And besides, you have a moral obligation to care for your family members who cannot or do not provide for themselves.”
Women use the long, strong arm of government to pry resources from men, in the name of “the children”. Women could go to their families for that support; but being estranged or kicked out or guilty or entitled; they instead turn their lonely eyes and outstretched open hands to government.
The ghetto sidetrack in these comments brings up other movies I thought of earlier, but eschewed in favor of the more happy Bedtime Stories.
This is a strategy for living in a Tyler Perry movie. A lot of people hate on Tyler Perry movies, and usually for the same reasons they hate on churchians.
@Greyghost
When do you think was the last time a man was born free?
Cane Caldo
good question, maybe never. Free is a relative term that can be defined as such. Adult reality of having to profide for yourself is an understandable and logical restiction on behavior. Slavery as I see it is a requirement to provide for others without any return even if it is just appreciation. I would say I was free until I became a husband and father. An irresponsible childish person will associate freedom with doing what ever the hell they wanted at everybody elses expense. (sounds like an entitled woman to me)
“However, a more rational approach would be to decide early on to encourage daughters to marry young and start having children,…”
What if the daughter is in the minority of women who are childfree and/or are not interested in early marriage, or marriage at all?
What i get from the article is that a son forgoes marriage. but still has an emotional desire to be with children. he can chose to be with his own relatives.
Ok, I’m not sure how I didn’t pick up on that earlier. I understand now.
The brother is just setting the table for all responsibility and zero authority. As soon as his input doesn’t meet her mindset, “Mind your own business. These are my kids, not yours! If you wanted kids, go have your own.” Later, she’ll dump on him when she needs things. I’ve literally seen this play out in my immediate family and in my buddy’s family.
@RTP
We should not underestimate the power of influence that a good man can have in the lives of those around him; especially if he is connected to the Source of all good things. A man would not pick the path of the beneficial uncle for his own sake, but for the sake of his nephews and nieces. It’s about love.
@greyghost
Every man–ever–was born into bondage of sin and flesh. Even Christ–though untainted by His own sin–took on the chains of flesh, and eventually took on the shackles of sin itself, entirely undeserved.
Man is perpetually un-free; except as we choose to take our place in the crowd shouting “Crucify Him! Let His blood be upon us!” Then, realizing our error, take up our own cross, and follow him to die undeservedly (as we are now cleansed by that blood we called for in filthy ignorance, but was delivered in blameless grace) for others.
I want to add: Doing all of this is the knowledge that Christ was bodily resurrected, ascended to Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. We believe in His promise of our resurrection in body and spirit, and it is available to all who will choose to follow Him.
I don’t underestimate the work of men.
I’m just not going to close my eyes to the reality playing out in front of me.
It’s all going to come down to how the woman acts and reacts. Every scenario dealing with raising children comes down to this. A man should ask, “Have you seen this woman (wife, g/f, sister) act with lead-pipe cruelty when she had power, or did she show mercy?”
Sorry, man, but there is only one grown woman that I know who has never shown cruelty – my childless and recently married sister. She’s a genuinely decent person and went unmarried for so long because she was fat. Now, she has a million dollar husband (character, not money). The rest of the women in my life (mother, other sister, ex’s, friends) have shown incredible inhumanity when they had the power to hurt others.
It amazes me how many people forget about the internet when having discussion comparing past social problems with today’s. People we have the internet today. Information exchanges hands at such an increasing turnover rate that the ability to communicate ideas, trends, and solutions has never been greater. This is like being alive when Luther posted his theses. Like the printing press the internet is letting a common man instruct, debate and otherwise share and cultivate ideas like we’ve never seen. never before have so many men had this ability. I mean this is something everyone instinctively knows but seems has gone without mention. This is the game changer from everything else. I mean look at how the dichotomous Alpha/Beta has made its way mainstream and Roisy has been up for what 4 yrs? I mean FOUR FUCKING YRS and his frame is creeping into mainstream. The exponential curve of the decline is picking up speed.
@RTP
If you’re focusing on the sister, then you’ve missed the point. Dalrock’s suggestion is for the benefit of the uncle, and the nephews and nieces. Personally, I’m even more in favor of focusing on the nephews for hopefully obvious reasons.
I can’t speak for others, but even though I am married, I deal with this with my sister. She’s a huge slut, and she has one son from her ex-husband. I suffer dealing with my sister for his sake because–as bad women have a taste for bad men. Her ex is a ne’erdowell, and my nephew is subjected to a steady stream of losers traipsing past his bedroom to my sister’s in her shitty apartment; paid for through unnecessary “disability insurance” from the state, and the child support payments extracted through the same mechanism. When he’s at his father’s house, it’s the same thing.
When he was three, he couldn’t wake my sister because she had overdosed on pain pills and alcohol, and he couldn’t wake his dad because he was just plain passed out from drinking. Who knows how long he sat ran around screaming, shitting himself, and eating jelly out of the fridge until he could wake his father. My father and I both consulted and paid lawyers to see if we could get custody. No dice.
My wallpaper on my phone is a picture of my son and my nephew; whom I view and treat as another son that my sister keeps from his rightful place with me. I will not abandon him until he is a man, and tells me to leave him alone either by words or deeds.
“What i get from the article is that a son forgoes marriage. but still has an emotional desire to be with children. he can chose to be with his own relatives.”
That’s what I picked up, too. What if sister tries to get rid of him? Well it wouldn’t be entirely up to her, I don’t think–mom and dad would have something to say about this, too.
I’m not sure I could recommend this strategy, but it has benefits.
“We should not underestimate the power of influence that a good man can have in the lives of those around him”
Oh heck yes. A lot of people here are talking about genetics, but that’s only half the equation. Children need to be taught right from wrong, and the more people doing the teaching the better.
Some of the upshot of this approach reminds me of my best freinds situation.
He is a stay at home Dad with a working wife. (lots of problems…to much to go into here…Yes..she feels “cheated”) He had a deceased grandfather who was worth several million. The family (his mother & uncle) are not giving the money to him…because she will just take it. (and may precipitate a divorce)
Instead his mother is giving them a little here and their…help with the downpayment on the house… a especially help with the kids education…and promises of more help when college bills eventually get here.
This is kind of what Dalrock proposes above with his thought experiment. All this is being done so that she dosent see a pool of assets to take in a divorce…blow the money on status symbols, and it all is helping keep her from running out on him…..
Its a sound approach but is telling about how people who have not “taken the red pill” are still wise to the ways of the modern woman and are willing to manipulate her according to their sons and grandchildrens best interest.
Cane Caldo
I suspected your response to my answer to your question would be what it was. we pretty much answered the question the same just using different wording.
Fitz
I would love to be a SAHD. Man that would be the most awesome hook up in the world. especially if you had some money in the background and family to watch your back.
to all
I’m an uncle greyghost and in my younger years as a young marine I played a role similar to this article. Nothing I had to do just something you do for good family. If my sister was a baby momma slut I wouldn’t have done a damn thing for her or my nieces. That wasn’t the case so i have family I may be able to count on in the future.
Sounds like the Mosuo tribe in China. It’s a society that haemorrhages men like a slashed artery. The only categories of men in their village are Alphas (who always have a place to sleep, regardless of how badly they treat the women) and Omegas who are too afraid of the outside world to leave. The only reason that the notoriously assimilationist mindset of Chinese politics hasn’t obliterated them is due to the idea that it would be a waste of bullets (Mosuo women are notoriously tough, Mosuo men are notoriously weak and the “best”/most serviceable Mosuo men are already in the cities. Why bother killing them when they’re killing themselves?)
The “problems” in ghetto black America fall under the same set of guidelines. The cream of the crop will leave, the scum will kill each other and the ones in the middle are too scared to do anything besides sit down and eat their gov’t-supplied cheese sandwiches. Any ghetto-born black man with a desire for security leaves as quickly as possible, so the police have no issues with committing “police brutality” (because 90% of the time, ghetto black men who are favoured by ghetto black women are doing something wrong. The other ten percent take their settlements and leave.) The women who fuel the ghetto mentality are happy with their govt-provided housing and welfare payments, the women with ambition stay inside (when not at work.) If it wasn’t for Hollywood’s propaganda machine (in which the 15% of black people living in the ghetto receive over 50% of all jobs and push an even higher percentage of representation of black people in media), it would be a perfect solution.
I don’t know if I could see many men consciously choosing this as a strategy, but I could see it happening as a result of the incentives currently in place. As more MGTOW, that’s bound to include some who would like to have children. They may decide that the risks outweigh the benefits, but if they have an opportunity to help raise a nephew and take him to his first ballgame and so on, they may jump at it. And unlike, say, volunteering for Big Brother/Big Sister, the kid you’re working with at least has some of your blood, which is important even to people who don’t know it.
a more rational approach would be to decide early on to encourage daughters to marry young and start having children, while encouraging sons to forgo having their own children and instead invest emotionally and financially in their nieces and nephews.
Well, this is as old as humanity. Elaine has come before me and has explained very well:
This reminds me of an anthropological study I read about some time ago regarding how sexuality shaped human society. The study cited a few African tribes (now I stress that not all African communities are like that in case I get tarred by the racist brush) where promiscuity was high amongst both men and women. As a result, men would not support women who purportedly had their children, nor the children themselves, since they could not be sure they indeed were the fathers. Their society developed into a matrilineal one (neither patriarchical nor matriarchical) where the duty of suporting women and their children fell onto the brothers and/or maternal uncles. The reasoning was that men were more likely to support children related to them by blood – ie the children of sisters (more likely half sisters since the only thing they could be sure of was that they both shared a mother).
In other words, every man has to support a child but only alphas get to f*ck. The paradise for women. No wonder women are so mesmerized by these primitive societies and their “It takes a village” approach. And modern society is devolving to this model.
It’s a very common model in primitive societies. Some scholars argue that it was the original sexual model of humanity.
However, some thousand years ago, somebody came to the idea of strengthening the bond between fathers and children. This needed female monogamy so the father could be sure the children he invested in were their own. So men slaved themselves for millennia to support wife and children. This work, when you multiply it by millions, is what makes civilization. Now, with female monogamy being abandoned, we are devolving to this model and we are devolving to a tribe (but Islam will take over before this transition is complete).
Sorry, Dalrock, but you won’t work the same for a nephew or niece as for a son or daughter. I have a niece and I can assure you that. This is where your model fails. Your model works in tribes but not for a civilization. Patriarchy is the other name for civilization.
Sorry, but it’s essentially lifelong divorce rape without ever having been married in the first place.
Imnobody
Of course it doesn’t work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204712/Woman-falsely-claimed-raped-men-regretted-having-sex-jailed-years.html
Bit of good news.
greyghost says:
September 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
) the collapse is when the money is not there any more. The scary thing is that the people are still there and they still want to eat. and all of those men at the ready to do the bidding for all of those baby mommas in need of a man to white knight for that love and pussy.
——————————————————————-
I think its a bit more complex than that Greyghost.
The ghetto economy is based around the ability of females to get government money/help. Its much more difficult for the men to get help. Hence, the males shack up with a female who gets this government money (including sons who live with moms). So I think you may have it backwards; you think these guys are loyal to the “love and pussy?”
Or are they there for the free food and housing?
You cut that off and I suspect a lot of these guys would bounce.
Bounce where?
anyplace that allows them to get away from the baggage they would realize these females would be if they had to work to support them.
Think about it. If these guys had to work vending a fruit stand all day, would they be willing to use their wages to support these females? (many with children from other guys)
If so, why don’t they do that now?
The proof is in the behavior of the females. They will never marry as long as doing so cuts off the government money.
Legislatures will justify this by saying (1) it’s for the children
Let me correct that for you
Legislatures will justify this by saying (1) it’s for the chilllldrrennnn
Paraphrase:
It takes a village [of wealth redistribution laws] to raise a child [to unthinking adulthood].
This post is very bizarre. Once you have children, they can decide to live their own lives. Why are the parents/grandparents involved in such decisions? It makes no sense to be involved and making decisions for adult children.
If you think raising sons are such liabilities (and for whom exactly?), the parents can always be there as backup, but never the decision maker. If the parents are such fatalists, they can choose to have one son or daughter. The liabilities are lessened with smaller families to support.
It is the daughters that seek to live their lives in the culture. If they choose to leave their husbands, it is their choice. You can’t force them to stay with their husbands.
“Turning your sons in beta providers for your daughters? Must be the stupidest idea I have heard in manosphere. Are you a feminist troll?”
I agree entirely!!!
David Collard (writes)
“I don’t agree, naturally, that Catholicism is a spent force. I think Benedict is a bit better than John Paul II, who was a pedestaliser of women and made nice to Islam. Benedict is less starry-eyed. But, yes, too many of the bishops and clergy are, or were, homosexuals, and they have done immense damage.”
Agreed as far as it goes.. evil has entered the a Church but I believe we staved it off and are thought the worst of it. Also..and more importantly…Catholicism is poised to be the go-to guy after the fall of feminism & the sexual revolution…in my estimation.
It represents in theory in its magisterial the most thoroughly modern and philosophically astute version of patriarchy in the western world. That is to say…its not a matter of theory ..but of application.
All the ingredients are their, we just need to take back our Church’s and start applying it.
Entropy is My God
As I said in the last thread…. for all I know catastrophic collapse at the level you seem to be inferring may well happen. I think its more likely that it will be more in the range of what
Ybm (says)
“If you are implying some sort of mad max scenario or a George Romeo zombie apocalypse in real life, think that’s a major stretch. If you mean a decline in wealth, standard of living and a great deal else to levels similar to the former soviet union, I’d say you are probably making a very reasonable prediction.”
My main concern regarding the collapse (no matter its severity) is not when or if it happens … but that when it does, I dont expect it to accrue to our advatage and our advesaries disadvantage..
I fully expect feminists and the cultural left to avoid acountabiliity as they have in the past and deflect all criticism. Indeed they will use it as an oportunity to advance feminism and socialism.
Thats what I’m most concerned with…
I know that many commenters had said this is not your brightest idea but I instead want to chime in. Predatory women (and not all women are predatory) are a black hole that will munch on anything to get their needs aka lust met. Parents, brothers, sisters, welfare, Jesus…you name it. Coming from the third world I know many women that will stay with a thug or change a good man if they know their family will be there for her, reason why the less sane women sometimes are kicked out of the house if they get pregnant there, is cruel but it does helps to avoid several children with different or no father to be known.
Knowing that they have a brother or several invested on the well being of her children will only mean that once she tingles for another man she will assume she will have people that will have her back. What will stop her? She can guilt trip or use her kids as a leverage and if the man already sees them as “the kids I never had” he is pretty much screwed up. This is the equivalent of cash and prizes just like it has been stated there is no commitment on the part of the woman because “is his blood” and “You had been more of a father to them than the biological father”. Wasn’t there a new campaign to allow for more than one father to be listed for “the benefit of the children” with time she can always claim that “My son had a connection with his uncle so we need to take his money now”. Really predatory women are more clever than this and will use this model to screw men in other ways, this is not a good alternative. I mean if the sister is good and she needs the extra help by all means but never think of it as a better alternative to the unfairness of the system, YMMV.
@ b-166-er
Those men will follow the money, if/when the economy collapses. If the “money” involves being in a gang, they’ll join gangs. If the “money” involves field work (eg. I’ve met my share of black loggers), they’ll grab an axe and do that. As I’ve said to plenty of people in my time (regarding this situation), “Don’t worry about the men, they’ll be alright. Worry more about the women, because there are a lot of (former)alpha chasers in the ghetto who will be left high and dry if or when the economy collapses.” Because, if there’s one thing that almost all ghetto-raised men hold as a common truth, its this: don’t trust any woman besides your mama (and keep an eye on her, as well.)
When the time comes, the party will be over. None of the 50+lb overweight women are going to have protectors (being able to run is sexier in a survival environment.) None of those multiple baby daddy-having women are going to have protectors (unless they’re really good at treati.g their families well.) Careerist women will be left behind (especially if they worked in Social Services or law.) Even the “fine” women will find it hard to secure protection (because ghetto-raised men know instinctively that there’s “always someone better”.) If women act out of line, they’ll find themselves out of the impromptu tribe (because most ghetto-raised guys live by IDGAF/”If it doesn’t make dollard, it don’t make sense”, and cohesion is more important than pussy.)
Of course, this is based on American-born urban individuals. Rural Americans will react much differently (cast a line in the creek and move on.)
Heck, I rather raise my sons to be misogynistic, crude bastards who’d only give a woman (er… “b*tch”) the time of day if it was when she should come over to his place, bend over and drop her panties– “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!” as Churchill said.
Anacaona,
You nailed it. Given women’s nature they WILL take advantage of the kind of situation proposed no doubt about it. Better to kick her to the curb and let her be an example to other women than to intentionally set up your son for this kind of crap.
my son is only 6 right now but this is the way this daddy is going to roll
Heck, I rather raise my sons to be misogynistic, crude bastards who’d only give a woman (er… “b*tch”) the time of day if it was when she should come over to his place, bend over and drop her panties. “If she isn’t sucking your dick or serving you some pussy when and where you want it she is not behaving properly, lose her and find you one that knows how to act”. “Don’t forget your male birth control pills you don’t want any of your bitches trying to pull no shit on you son”
MaMu1977 where in the country are you from ? I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area in Texas.
Looking at thwe reaction Dalrock we are back on tract working towards large numbers of involuntary childless spinsters.
@greyghost
New York City, the birthplace of “women’s empowerment”.
Investing in one’s blood-sister’s children could be sustainable. I don’t recall where I read it, but I’ve heard that because Inuit wives are traditionally able to sleep with several brother-husbands (and occasionally, houseguests – er, igloo-guests, whatever), inheritance is traditionally from a man to his blood-sister’s children (who are certain to share half his DNA). I’m not sure if that’s an urban myth or not, and I can’t find confirmation in Google. But it’s a sound theory.
“while encouraging sons to forgo having their own children and instead invest emotionally and financially in their nieces and nephews.”
That’s a ridiculous concept. I could see a feminist say the same thing “Yeah, we’re married and the kids not yours, but you can invest emotionally and financially into raising him.”
If I had a sister, and she had kids, I’d be an uncle, and that’s it – her choice, her problem.
Friendship and a mentor to some degree, presents on his/her birthday and Christmas and that’s it – if it didn’t come from my testes, I’m not providing regular ongoing, decades long financial support. And why should parents, who presumably sacrificed their own financial welfare raising both girls and boys, now be expected to raise their daughter’s broods… and do what? Maybe they should have some quality of life, at the end of their lives, after working for 40-50 years.
Heck, continuing the family line by unmarried women w/ kids and de-emphasized men like this is already happening…
So… you help your sister in various ways. Then, when she blows up her family anyway, you have a choice to make. If you want to be part of the solution rather than the problem, you must be willing to stop helping. I have a sister who I helped in many ways. Then she became obsessed with feminism and a few years later blew up her family (and her own life). Since then I don’t help her. “Very few people can be totally ruthless. It isn’t easy; it takes more strength than you might believe.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204778/Domestic-violence-include-mental-torment-laws-applied-aged-18.html
Very nice, don’t ya think?!
every man has to support a child but only alphas get to f*ck.
This presumes female choice, which in turn presumes law and order. Absent the rule of law, there’s nothing to prevent betas, or gangs of betas, from engaging in rape or even capture and enslavement of desireable females — and using their higher IQ to triumph over their alpha competitors. No alpha, no mattter how tough, can survive a poisoned arrow in the back.
Indeed, somewhere back in ancient history, this probably already happened.
@imnobody, Eoin MacAodh, etc.
I am not an anthropologist but from I have read and understand for female promiscuity and removal of fatherhood it is necessary for the environment to be fertile enough to enable women feed themselves and their offspring with minimum of male participation.
In such societies men do not work hard or even at all. I have never found a source claiming otherwise.
@MaMu1977
When it comes to Mosuo, Chinese do not need to interfere simply because Mosuo are dying out anyway (due to very low fertility). There is no need to do anything, just wait.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/men-at-work-hoes-ploughs-and-steel/
Twenty to Twenty-Eight:
There’s one problem though: Pre-marital sex is a sin, and an affront to true Christian Biblical marriage. The authentic Christian woman doesn’t have any sexual experience or if she does very little and is contrite about it, including completely accepting the consequences and not hiding behind crap like being a “born again virgin” or inciting the preacher to cry about “manning up and marrying the sluts”. She should look for the same in a man. This was what the post I made was about, along with the quote. The average “Christian” woman looks for sin in her prospective partner and rejects him when she doesn’t find this sin in him.
Justinian:
Because it’s in essence the supplicating beta male (to compare it to the marriage model). I refer to what passes for Christianity today as Churchianity because of this exact reason. Instead of standing on Christ alone and His ways, they stand on the ways of men. They stand on buildings (“churches”), which are exalted by the ways of men and not of Christ. They stand on sinful men that they exalt. They stand on organizations, policies, and procedures. They make themselves to be like the world, follow after the world, and pander to the world. They don’t stand on Christ or His principles.
Others see these things as they are who stand outside of it for what they are and give it the treatment it deserves. They are not ignorant of what Christianity is supposed to stand for, it’s just that those who represent it at leadership levels act in a way that falls below worldly standards for respect, much less what Scripture actually says (hypocrisy!). If you don’t act in a way that engenders respect, don’t be surprised when you don’t get any. Many of the Churchian groups (especially in the first-world) who cry persecution need to be looking in the mirror more than crying about how unfair everyone else is.
How can women have respect for a religion that doesn’t call them on the carpet to standards? Given what I know of most women, there has to be a part of them that knows what they are doing is wrong (like pre-marital sex or adultery), yet the church chooses to never call them on it and even rationalize it away. Listening to Driscoll’s full sermons on marriage give me that idea too. While he is a useful tool for them in their sin, I have to think that most of them respect him very little given what he hasn’t called out in women.
With anything, even if a person believes that someone else is wrong (save moral repugnance), most people can respect someone or something that stands for a certain thing in a genuine way and doesn’t waver from it.
@FITZ
“fully expect feminists and the cultural left to avoid acountabiliity as they have in the past and deflect all criticism.”
The only thing keeping these persons from extreme and final criticism is the tyrannical monopoly of blue violence perpetuated by the pink jackbooted state. Once these “Lawful” mercenaries’ no longer command and control to the extent they do currently, there will be no way to obfuscate or deflect their part. Then, they will find real justice at the hands of the just.
I hope now ater ballista74’s post a few more under stand the reason why christians need Game. Game is female psychology in the real world and is a valuable tool.
“Game is female psychology in the real world and is a valuable tool.”
There’s easier ways of becoming a woman’s servant than learning Game.
The Real Peterman
You have that backwards. just because you understand game you won’t become some supplicating christian(churchian man) or a PUA. Infact you are less likely to find women in general very impressive and you will begin to wonder how in the hell did they get a whole christian church to make themselves churchian so has to worship pussy. good luck real guy
More mainstream media fodder for female gynocentrism:
details.com/sex-relationships/marriage-and-kids/200808/stigma-of-the-never-married-man
“However, a more rational approach …” Sort of like setting the terms of your surrender.
If the goal is to preserve the bloodline and name, the rational approach is to only have sons, not daughters. Encourage the sons to marry a college educated woman who works and can support herself. Get a pre-nup. Have 1 or 2 kids max. Make sure this woman is fully employed after birth. Then if the marriage fails, she will not ask for alimony or prevented with a pre-nup. The child support is reduced to 50%.
If you have a daughter, encourage her to marry a rich or a upper middle class man. Discourage a pre-nup. Have as many babies as possible (3 to 5). When marriage fails, get maximum alimony and child support. Yes, use the court system to your advantage. Suing is a threat to get a settlement. Usually, a threat is enough because we know the costs of a court fight.
You essentially work with the reality that we have. You don’t create a new one where we obligate sons to support daughters with a so-called bloodline to maintain, which is silly. Who does this except for rich people or royals?
DV, and the law.
Be very careful, what you write here may be a form of domestic violence.
Piggybacking off of greyghost’s last post, re: losing respect for women once you understand Game.
From May 2006-October 2007, I was involved in an all-but-physically intimate (read as, we never rounded the bases, but she loved sitting on third for me) relationship with a former neo-Nazi. In addition, I was also indulging in a full-fledged sexual relationship with a still-active German nationalist (IOW, she wasn’t explicitly bigoted or racist, but she *did* believe that the only people who should be allowed to live in germany are white and preferably Teutonic/scandinavian people, not even Baltics or Slavs.) In the case of the latter, she went to the hospital to receive proof of absence of STDs when I told her that I wore condoms “for my health”.
To clarify, for those posters who don’t already know, I am a six-foot tall black man. Despite the fact that the majority of the German men in the area were taller, bigger and less feminism-minded than the Americans at our base, the few non-German men in the area who couldn’t find female german partners were either gay or crippled. In fact, I could pay for a decent steak dinner if I had a dollar for every married woman in that area who showed interest in me (and I could buy a franchise Extra Value Meal for every woman who I slept with who I saw at a later date with her husband and kids.)
Game is best used to get girls, not keep them. The only thing that will prevent women from leaving you is a lack of options, period.
Yeah, in my younger days, I was in Germany and the notch count spun wild there. Heck, that was 92-93. The German military simply isn’t the same as it was decades ago. It’s a collection of guys who couldn’t beat the draft. The allure of the uniform persists for women. They just want the jackhammer undercarriage to accompany it.
greyghost says:
September 18, 2012 at 8:11 am
So true, the moment you realize that most women are crass whores your entire world view changes, from then on it’s very hard to have any respect for the “fairer sex”.
MaMu1977 says:
September 18, 2012 at 1:25 pm
I was raised is a Germanic neighborhood and yes, German chicks love to bang black guys.
Game talks about achieving ‘amused mastery’ when interacting with women.
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/
Alas, i’m still at ‘lingering contempt’ at the true nature of female sexuality. I liken it to a grieving process, Kubler Ross style. That would have me still somewhere early in the dabdah process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
Such is life. You never know what to expect, but it wasn’t this. Then again, nobody expects the spanish inquisition, either.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dvt0Y39eMvpI&gl=GB
Jimbo says:
September 18, 2012 at 9:59 am
Encourage the sons to marry a college educated woman who works and can support herself. Get a pre-nup. Have 1 or 2 kids max.
–
If you have a daughter, encourage her to marry a rich or a upper middle class man. Discourage a pre-nup.
—
Pre-nups mean nothing in court these days, especially if kids are involved, so in your scenario, your sons are fooled into feeling safe, and your daughter can just sign a pre-nup without breaking a sweat, if a rich man makes that request before marrying her.
Totally random question from a lurker, Mamu, but I almost always ask this whenever I see a commenter somewhere I really like: Do you have a blog of your own? I’ve found your insights at Dalrock’s and other places I lurk at to be consistently thought-provoking and illuminating, and would be interested in reading more of your writing.
Margaret Meade wrote in MALE AND FEMALE, around 1950, that one small tribe in the jungle did in fact teach men to help support their sisters’ children, not their own. She said this was the only society she knew which managed to get men to support anyone but their current lovers and their kids. Little did she know what guns and jail can accomplish.
One big problem Margaret had was treating all societies as sort of equal, which is pure nonsense. That small tribe cured no illnesses, invented nothing. They lived at a bare survival level. Which is what you get when men have no right to their own offspring.
Pingback: Daughter Investment = Marriage Divestment - The Spearhead
“Pre-nups mean nothing in court these days, especially if kids are involved, so in your scenario, your sons are fooled into feeling safe, and your daughter can just sign a pre-nup without breaking a sweat, if a rich man makes that request before marrying her.”
Your formulation is wrong. Pre-nups are upheld by the courts to divide MARITAL property, which is a substantial amount especially if the marriages lasted longer than 10 years. It can protect savings accounts, real estate property, and retirement accounts. A pre-nup will preclude alimony, which are not tax deductible. It’s money taxed, but not spent by the ex-husband.
Pre-nups are not designed to protect kids. You can’t sign away the children’s rights.
The son is certainly feeling safer by knowing his property is outside of his ex-wife’s hands. A note of warning, if the wife makes more than the husband, which is happening in a minority of cases, she will be protected from his demands. Thus, tread carefully.
Of course your daughter will have to deal with the rich guy’s demand for a pre-nup. She should certainly fight for what’s fair, but this should be dealt with before the marriage. You’re still taking about money that no middle class man can even approach. For example, Donald Trump always demands a pre-nup for his second and third marriages. For his second marriage, I heard the terms were quite strict, but still substantial. Zero if marriage lasts less than a year. $500K if the marriage lasts 3 years, etc. If a pre-nup isn’t broached with a rich man, the daughter should at least bring it up so it isn’t suddenly sprung 1 day before the big wedding.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: International Talk Like A Pirate Day Edition « Patriactionary
@hurp
Sorry, no blog. I don’t have the time to maintain one, and my best posts are created through anecdotal evidence.
Is there a word already in use to describe women who are angry/annoyed because they are a mans first born child and they are not a son?
I can see how some of the so called feminists could really just be women “hating” on men because of perceptions their fathers were disapointed in having girls instead of boys?
I might have a sister or two like this. The irony is that while she hates her younger brothers, she loves her own son and treats him like a little prince who can do no wrong. Something tells me my nephew will never find a wife good enough for my sister to accept; she’s gonna be the mother in law from hell.
In addition, Ive heard that divorced, or single mothers are terrible for sons because they raise them to imitate the guy they wished they married when they were younger; so they often turn out to be pussies?
Rock Throwing Peasant says:
September 18, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Yeah, in my younger days, I was in Germany and the notch count spun wild there. Heck, that was 92-93. The German military simply isn’t the same as it was decades ago. It’s a collection of guys who couldn’t beat the draft. The allure of the uniform persists for women. They just want the jackhammer undercarriage to accompany
———————————————
The allure of uniform by women is just a form of pre qualification by the state. It tells a woman that some of the qualification as “marriage material” has already been done for her and she can concentrate on the other things like “is he funny?, can he fuck good?
In addition, don’t forget about the death benefit provided to the woman by this same state.
Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock
This is more evidence for female projection. We are told men only think with their dicks, think about sex every x number of minutes or what have you, but its really women who do that, and their actions are crashing our culture. Unleashed female sexuality, either totally free of consequences or padded from harsh reality.