Men appeasing women is why we are in the place we are in society currently. Even conservatives are too cowardly to dare blame woman who seek abortions as responsible for their choices. The coddling has to end before any semblance of sanity can be achieved.
When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro and con. Everywhere, wherever life is actual, reigns an inward organic logic, an "it," a drive, that is utterly independent of waking-being, with its causal linkages, and indeed not even observed by it. The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births. In the Classical world the practice was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece, and yet even at his date it had long been established in great cities; in subsequent Roman times it became appallingly general. At first explained by the economic misery of the times, very soon it ceased to explain itself at all. And at that point, too, in Buddhist India as in Babylon, in Rome as in our own cities, a man's choice of the woman who is to be, not mother of his children as amongst peasants and primitives, but his own "companion for life," becomes a problem of mentalities.
I've went from believing that fetuses are parasites to loving being a parent, I can't believe how much brainwashing I had in me 6 years ago.
I have my wife to thank for not dumping my sorry ass back then.
That is what the cool people online were saying when reddit was young. I guess I was very impressionable and edgy. I thought that we should not have kids cause the world is overpopulated, that guns are evil, republicans are all evil racists, climate was going to kill us all in our lifetime, we need high taxes to help the poor, healthcare is a right, that anyone who did not share my views was an idiot, etc.
I would not be friends with myself pre 2014-2012, I was an edgy, smug idiot who thought himself smart.
On the upside, if I changed 180 then there is hope.
Yes, so? Weak men created laws and norms at women's request to make having a family and children very dangerous and damaging for the man. The cause is OBVIOUSLY empowering women and the weak men that did this. There is no turning back from this path. Women are the majority of voters. You will live by their primal instincts and you will do what they tell you to do or you will be disposed of.
It's calling you a deracinated bugman who revels in the ruinous materialistic hedonism of western civilization instead of assuming the role of Man. It's not "do it for the party"; it's do it because this is what Men do, and, if done properly, women will happily submit because they want to be dominated, as demonstrated by their willing submission to the corporate state.
Simply accepting the situation and merely trying to mitigate the risks is what women do when the barbarians pillage and rape their town. You've adopted the position of a woman.
That is a ridiculous idea.
First of all, you can't say anything that will be universally true about everyone like that.
Second, how can you even think you can decide that for everyone? What now? If someone says "nah, I gained this and this and I'm happy", will you just go to your typical answer of the man being brainwashed or blackmailed?
It's stupid and meaningless to come with big declarations like that of all the other people when you are just doing to say "NUH" when someone say it's not true.
Again, that is ridiculous in many ways. Maybe a bunch of people don't just care about money and meaningless baubles. You could be money-oriented. Many of us aren't.
You also come with the idea that a woman can only ever be a dependent. Like is she a dependent if she would be okay on her own too?
Also, in many traditional relationships the woman staying home means a lot of actual money saved, when for example childcare would be more expensive or if they try to be self-sufficient and she does a lot of that stuff around the home.
With psycho women, it's the same as with abusive men. 99.9% of them don't just become lunatics out of nowhere. If you are honest with yourself and you look and don't ignore the red flags, the risks are WAY lower.
You will just say NOOOOOPE (all women are psycho, no men are abusive, it's all just women making everything bad happen ever), but whatever.
But a tangible benefit is something with some kind of value to it, not mere emotional hamster-wheel logic.
Even if they work for themselves, you won't see a cent unless you're earning far more and it's the financial equivalent of a virtue signal. Aside from that, do you really think tradcucks have the wife work? Of course not, she sits at home doing fuck all.
But if they didn't marry, they wouldn't have the child to need childcare.
I've literally had people I've known for years turn all leftist BLM cult on me. Don't give me that "red flag" bullshit. A woman with intelligence can hide those easily.
There are many, many people who will say they benefited from marriage in a tangible way. From having someone in their life (physically and mentally) to love and walk with and raise kids with and support them. Even many unhappy people are still happier than they would have been with no one, and with no kids. Marriage is good unless you're set to be a monk, which is good too. Don't get down on marriage. This guy's "women like to be dominated stuff" is off however. Though it is true women are generally followers and are commanded to be submissive. I think most of the problems you see with marriage, why you think it isn't beneficial, or why others don't has to do with the marriages you're looking at being non-Christian (and this goes for most of the self-proclaimed "Christians" too). Marriage and life without God at the centre is empty in the end and isn't beneficial. Dunno who you think the true enemy is, but it's satanism (aka Marxism), that anti-god, there is no God type stuff and that's what's seeped into western countries and the institution of marriage and makes them seem this way.
Stormfags are imaginary nazi's, a term typically used by leftist shills on this board. Supposedly it refers to a message board from a decade ago with less than eight thousand total users who are now somehow everywhere and everyone.
Tradcuck is what doomers call people who are actually walking the walk instead of giving up and wringing their hands. It's usually used by people who still think there is any excuse to be an atheist.
He knows your wife more than you do. She is EEEEEVIL temptress who draws you away from the true direction of being bitchy dude who pretends all women are literal Satan.
"Trad cuck" is what people write as an insult when they have no other way to respond to traditionalist ideals.
"Stormfag" and "stormcuck" is what people write when they've been reading too many leftists blogs or go too deep down the CivNat rabbit hole. It comes from "stormfront," which is a website that was claimed by leftists and a tiny minority of vaguely right-leaning individuals to be far-right.
In reality stormfront has always been a meme and no one that isn't a FED ever unironically supported it. The place is run by a fat jew.
When people use stormfag or stormcuck as a legitimate insult these days they're being incredibly disingenuous, or haven't been able to find a new meme insult for the past decade.
Tradcuck seems to mean the person is adhering to tradition even though it is not in their best interest to do so.
Stormfag is for anyone that fits into the stereotypes of the userbase of stormfront (I may have gotten the site's name wrong). An easy qualifier for the label is promoting the solidarity of whites or attacking jews. Basically like a backup term for nazi.
These are based off of observation, so if anyone has anything to add, I'm open to updating my definitions. Tradcuck in particular I'm wondering if it has any relation to "boomer".
Sorry, I wasn't clear with that speculation. I was meaning more along the lines of how people have changed the term boomer to be - if not outright dismissive - meaning something like "person who has traded the wellbeing of their children for some extra money or comfort, or is likely to do so if given the opportunity now".
The way I see tradcuck used online, it's in a similar vein as that, except where boomers are implicitly too naive to know any better, tradcucks relish their own failures (this stems from the use of "cuck"). This is where I personally become uncomfortable, because a naive man can learn and change, but a person seeking failure is irredeemable.
I can't say I really follow the example of Nick Fuentes, as I have no idea who that is, but you mentioning "mgtow/incel" in the same sentence reminds me that local lad impossible1 is actually where I first noticed the term tradcuck being tossed around.
Np, gave me a chance to cross check definitions with other users here.
I'm sure you've noticed there are some small conflicts here. It's no surprise that bystanders become confused when things occasionally degrade into namecalling. New slang naturally pops up, and anyone that wasn't present for its introduction will be out of the loop.
A tradcuck is someone who considers marriage still important and men's role in society to be to provide for women. Most are deluded boomers, but some aren't.
tradcucks are naive, delusional closet commies that fantasize about living in a 1850s timeline. They beg young men to throw themselves up on the altar of feminism and light themselves on fire to keep the boomers and other tradcucks warm at night.
Men appeasing women is why we are in the place we are in society currently. Even conservatives are too cowardly to dare blame woman who seek abortions as responsible for their choices. The coddling has to end before any semblance of sanity can be achieved.
This is not a thing. Also
give me some more milk, lolcow
It absolutely is a thing.
But anyway, cry more about how "muh blacks will ruin everything"
-Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
I've went from believing that fetuses are parasites to loving being a parent, I can't believe how much brainwashing I had in me 6 years ago. I have my wife to thank for not dumping my sorry ass back then.
How the hell does a man begin to think that way?
That is what the cool people online were saying when reddit was young. I guess I was very impressionable and edgy. I thought that we should not have kids cause the world is overpopulated, that guns are evil, republicans are all evil racists, climate was going to kill us all in our lifetime, we need high taxes to help the poor, healthcare is a right, that anyone who did not share my views was an idiot, etc.
I would not be friends with myself pre 2014-2012, I was an edgy, smug idiot who thought himself smart.
On the upside, if I changed 180 then there is hope.
Brainwashing, it starts early in the west.
People should read more Spengler. Not that I think it would help most of them, change their minds and actions, but it's still good stuff.
Yes, so? Weak men created laws and norms at women's request to make having a family and children very dangerous and damaging for the man. The cause is OBVIOUSLY empowering women and the weak men that did this. There is no turning back from this path. Women are the majority of voters. You will live by their primal instincts and you will do what they tell you to do or you will be disposed of.
This is a lot of words to say very little.
It's calling you a deracinated bugman who revels in the ruinous materialistic hedonism of western civilization instead of assuming the role of Man. It's not "do it for the party"; it's do it because this is what Men do, and, if done properly, women will happily submit because they want to be dominated, as demonstrated by their willing submission to the corporate state.
Simply accepting the situation and merely trying to mitigate the risks is what women do when the barbarians pillage and rape their town. You've adopted the position of a woman.
And yet there isn't a single person in the West, maybe even on this Earth, who can say their marriage was beneficial to them in a tangible way.
I want to fight back against the situation, but as you know, my perception of who the enemy is, is very different to that of others.
I gotta ask man, do you realize when your argument falls apart and you subsequently make a retarded follow up?
Or is your head so far up your own ass you can't even recognize it or care?
You're not an idiot.
You know that you just said something retarded.
Why?
I can't even think of a possible benefit to marriage that is tangible. It's all emotional hamstering that actually the massive debt was worth it.
You're doubling down.
It's not about what you think.
You stated that no man on Earth could testify as to gaining value from their marriage.
That is obviously retarded.
Gaining tangible value. As in something that exists and can be quantified.
That is a ridiculous idea.
First of all, you can't say anything that will be universally true about everyone like that.
Second, how can you even think you can decide that for everyone? What now? If someone says "nah, I gained this and this and I'm happy", will you just go to your typical answer of the man being brainwashed or blackmailed?
It's stupid and meaningless to come with big declarations like that of all the other people when you are just doing to say "NUH" when someone say it's not true.
It depends what you consider tangible. I highly doubt anyone made a profit out of taking an extra dependent plus a ton of risk.
Again, that is ridiculous in many ways. Maybe a bunch of people don't just care about money and meaningless baubles. You could be money-oriented. Many of us aren't.
You also come with the idea that a woman can only ever be a dependent. Like is she a dependent if she would be okay on her own too?
Also, in many traditional relationships the woman staying home means a lot of actual money saved, when for example childcare would be more expensive or if they try to be self-sufficient and she does a lot of that stuff around the home.
With psycho women, it's the same as with abusive men. 99.9% of them don't just become lunatics out of nowhere. If you are honest with yourself and you look and don't ignore the red flags, the risks are WAY lower.
You will just say NOOOOOPE (all women are psycho, no men are abusive, it's all just women making everything bad happen ever), but whatever.
But a tangible benefit is something with some kind of value to it, not mere emotional hamster-wheel logic.
Even if they work for themselves, you won't see a cent unless you're earning far more and it's the financial equivalent of a virtue signal. Aside from that, do you really think tradcucks have the wife work? Of course not, she sits at home doing fuck all.
But if they didn't marry, they wouldn't have the child to need childcare.
I've literally had people I've known for years turn all leftist BLM cult on me. Don't give me that "red flag" bullshit. A woman with intelligence can hide those easily.
There are many, many people who will say they benefited from marriage in a tangible way. From having someone in their life (physically and mentally) to love and walk with and raise kids with and support them. Even many unhappy people are still happier than they would have been with no one, and with no kids. Marriage is good unless you're set to be a monk, which is good too. Don't get down on marriage. This guy's "women like to be dominated stuff" is off however. Though it is true women are generally followers and are commanded to be submissive. I think most of the problems you see with marriage, why you think it isn't beneficial, or why others don't has to do with the marriages you're looking at being non-Christian (and this goes for most of the self-proclaimed "Christians" too). Marriage and life without God at the centre is empty in the end and isn't beneficial. Dunno who you think the true enemy is, but it's satanism (aka Marxism), that anti-god, there is no God type stuff and that's what's seeped into western countries and the institution of marriage and makes them seem this way.
Many not only can, but will say that.
Your only way out is to insist that they are lying. The considerably better outcomes for married people will belie that claim.
Admit you're a slave to base instincts while not saying you're a slave to base instincts
I would cross-post, but I feel like it's best I don't.
'Take endless risk'? lol
LOL! I do admit to findind this funny about the trad cucks in our midst (here and patriots.win).
I'm not as informed as most guys, what is a trad cuck and what is a stormfag? I see this terms being used a lot but I'm not sure what they are.
Stormfags are imaginary nazi's, a term typically used by leftist shills on this board. Supposedly it refers to a message board from a decade ago with less than eight thousand total users who are now somehow everywhere and everyone.
Tradcuck is what doomers call people who are actually walking the walk instead of giving up and wringing their hands. It's usually used by people who still think there is any excuse to be an atheist.
It actually refers to Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts that helped the Nazis gain power.
How many kids do you have then? I openly state I have zero and absolutely no plans of having them.
It does not now nor did it ever.
That is something you made up or misunderstood.
Stormfag is a classic 4chan insult from a decade ago that came back into vogue because of leftist communists.
Two with another one on the way. No plan to stop either.
Well, at least you're drinking the Kool-Aid as well as offering it around.
I'm homeschooling them too.
He knows your wife more than you do. She is EEEEEVIL temptress who draws you away from the true direction of being bitchy dude who pretends all women are literal Satan.
You have a stable and happy family life with many children.
Ha what a fucking loser.
"Trad cuck" is what people write as an insult when they have no other way to respond to traditionalist ideals.
"Stormfag" and "stormcuck" is what people write when they've been reading too many leftists blogs or go too deep down the CivNat rabbit hole. It comes from "stormfront," which is a website that was claimed by leftists and a tiny minority of vaguely right-leaning individuals to be far-right.
In reality stormfront has always been a meme and no one that isn't a FED ever unironically supported it. The place is run by a fat jew.
When people use stormfag or stormcuck as a legitimate insult these days they're being incredibly disingenuous, or haven't been able to find a new meme insult for the past decade.
Tradcuck seems to mean the person is adhering to tradition even though it is not in their best interest to do so.
Stormfag is for anyone that fits into the stereotypes of the userbase of stormfront (I may have gotten the site's name wrong). An easy qualifier for the label is promoting the solidarity of whites or attacking jews. Basically like a backup term for nazi.
These are based off of observation, so if anyone has anything to add, I'm open to updating my definitions. Tradcuck in particular I'm wondering if it has any relation to "boomer".
edit: added a guess for site name
Sorry, I wasn't clear with that speculation. I was meaning more along the lines of how people have changed the term boomer to be - if not outright dismissive - meaning something like "person who has traded the wellbeing of their children for some extra money or comfort, or is likely to do so if given the opportunity now".
The way I see tradcuck used online, it's in a similar vein as that, except where boomers are implicitly too naive to know any better, tradcucks relish their own failures (this stems from the use of "cuck"). This is where I personally become uncomfortable, because a naive man can learn and change, but a person seeking failure is irredeemable.
I can't say I really follow the example of Nick Fuentes, as I have no idea who that is, but you mentioning "mgtow/incel" in the same sentence reminds me that local lad impossible1 is actually where I first noticed the term tradcuck being tossed around.
Thx man, I was so lost, I knew stormfag was something to do with jews but I did not even know if it was for or against.
Np, gave me a chance to cross check definitions with other users here.
I'm sure you've noticed there are some small conflicts here. It's no surprise that bystanders become confused when things occasionally degrade into namecalling. New slang naturally pops up, and anyone that wasn't present for its introduction will be out of the loop.
A tradcuck is someone who considers marriage still important and men's role in society to be to provide for women. Most are deluded boomers, but some aren't.
Do you truly believe that what you just wrote is how traditionalists view marriage?
Well, a two-income household is non-traditional, so...yes?
What are you even arguing?
No traditionalist wants a dual income household.
That's what I'm saying. They believe men's role is to provide for women, which is what I said.
I was actually meaning to ask you about it, thank you for volunteering the information.
I can't say I agree with your definitions, but I appreciate seeing what other people think about it, so thanks for that.
tradcucks are naive, delusional closet commies that fantasize about living in a 1850s timeline. They beg young men to throw themselves up on the altar of feminism and light themselves on fire to keep the boomers and other tradcucks warm at night.