"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" - "Paradise Lost," John Milton
Divorce is right at 50%, I believe. And about 70% of men between 20 and 34 are not married. And we're not at replacement rate.
I don't think the problem is all that hard: men are being treated unfairly. What's truly odd are those who think it's not true. You know - "patriarchy" and "male privilege" and "white privilege." I just gape at these people. Just how deluded are they? Pretty damn deluded, I'd say.
Samuel Johnson, hundreds of years ago, made this comment: "Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little." (Every man - and woman - should memorize this saying.)
Now the law is far too tilted toward favoring women.
Women have the babies so they are indispensable. Men, on the other hand, as Carl Jung noticed, are culturally indispensable, since they created everything.
Unfortunately, since the reigning paradigm is "equality," it pretends women are as culturally indispensable as men....while denying that men are the ones who are culturally indispensable.
Bizarre.
So what we are getting is women withdrawing from having babies (including aborting them) while men are withdrawing from creating and maintaining culture.
Again, bizarre.
Men are still supposed to support women in all ways but in what ways are women supporting men? When I look around I can't see any ways in which women in general support men. I certainly don't see any respect or gratitude.
Egalitarianism and democracy are feminine qualities. Aristocracy is masculine. But if everyone is supposed to be equal there can be no aristocracy!
But it's the aristocracy (and the freedom the aristocracy believes in) that advances society (and by aristocracy I mean such men as Nikolai Tesla, Isaac Newton, Adam Smith - the ones who create, maintain and advance culture).
So how can you have democracy and liberty at the same time? You can't.
Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihn once wrote that all aristocrats are anarchists. He's right about that.
When the law is fair, the more quality men become liberty-loving aristocrats who follow their interests, who create, discover and invent and therefore advance society (I've always been amused about the Manosphere's delusions about what a "high-quality" man is).
There is always going to be tension between women's fascist/socialist delusions, their desire for security and fear of freedom - and men's desire to be free.
To everyone's detriment, the first is now enshrined in law and the second is dying. Which means liberty shrinks and inventions, discoveries and even the maintaining of civilization goes backwards. And socialism and fascism advance.
If women ruled society would be a Hell. It's turning into one right now.
10 comments:
If women ruled society would be a Hell. It's turning into one right now.
And now more Hell is coming:
The proposed revision to the Model Penal Code would turn a young man on a date into a criminal if he timidly reaches out to hold his date's hand without her prior positive agreement. (Because the proposed revision is written in gender neutral terms, theoretically, the young woman would be guilty if she initiated the contact, but in a society where gender roles are largely defined by pursuer and "hard to get," and where male complaints of sexual assault are hardly ever reported and even less likely to be believed, it seems obvious that this proposed law is intended to punish, and change, traditional male behavior.)
MGTOW is becoming the only available option to landlocked males, which is the state of the majority of males.
@njartist
That is absolutely insane. Hope that provision gets defeated, although something tells me that it will soon be signed into law, despite the objections. It boggles the mind to think that such crap is being seriously considered by supposedly sane people. It does appear that societal collapse is indeed just around the corner.
I don't think that most men are conscious of the reasons they are not getting married. They are like I was before finding sites like this one: they know in their gut that something is not right, but they just can't put their finger on it. And unlike in the past, it is getting harder and harder to shame men into marriage. Although still possible.
Judging by the comments from comments I get from women, most are angry at me. Except for older ones, who look at their grandsons and go, "Oh shit, there is a problem."
Here is more feminizing of men. Why are feministas so obsessed with control every aspect of the male?
http://www.today.com/health/men-red-appear-angry-aggressive-study-finds-t20961?__source=xfinity|hero&par=xfinity
Modern "quality" men according to the Manosphere:
*selfish
*narcissistic
*sociopathic
Just like the elite bankers who have caused several banking crises over the years (1987 and 2009 for indications). But then, what woman wouldn't want to get involved with a selfish, narcissistic, sociopathic, rich banker?
^
Great black humor today, BPS.
"Modern "quality" men according to the Manosphere: selfish, narcissistic, sociopathic"
I think most of these young mgtow/red pill guys grew up without a father (or other strong male role model, like even a grandfather or uncle) in single mother homes. These men have never had the influence and guidance of a proper father figure, and this manosphere stuff is the result.
'I think most of these young mgtow/red pill guys grew up without a father (or other strong male role model, like even a grandfather or uncle) in single mother homes.'
That is exactly my conclusion.
I Don't Need No Daddy:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/i_dont_need_no_daddy.html
Post a Comment