20 The Hill is worried how many men are rejecting starting a family in favor of living a good life. (media.communities.win) posted 50 days ago by TheImpossible1 50 days ago by TheImpossible1 +32 / -12 55 comments download share 55 comments share download save hide report block hide replies
Shrieking hysterical feminist/tradcucks all blowing the same horn, all steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that the real inducement preventing men from engaging in relationships is in fact their ceaseless finger-wagging admonitions about men's responsibility to a society that offers them no reward, no matter what path they take.
Well they can't hold women responsible, so their only option is go go after men.
Because what they truly want isn't a partner, they want a slave that they get paid to get rid of when they're bored.
I mean it's what happened with the black community for the longest time, and why I'd never want to date a black woman. Was talking to one of my work buddies a while back (he's from jamaica and is incredibly chill). Where he's from women won't even talk about having kids or what men make until they're deep into the relationship. Over here, at least pertaining to black women, they'll ask that on the first date and walk out if they don't like what they hear.
If you're a woman and ever want total control over someone, have a kid with them. Then if they aren't 100% to your standards, you can treat them like garbage and get $500/month off them in child support should they ever leave.
She could also have a kid with someone else and still blame the guy she only fucked once. The government doesn't care, so long as they get a cut of those child support checks.
Correct. Feminists and tradcucks have different visions of an ideal society, but both seem to think that their utopia can be achieved by society dictating men's life decisions with no regard to what the men themselves want. That's why both sides post crap telling men to "step up" on a regular basis. The missing piece of the puzzle is what the men get out of the deal.
Sorry, did I hear that right? Women can't opt out?
They can't take birth control to enable functionless sex? They can't enter the workforce and support themselves without a family? They never receive government money when they can't earn? They don't have access to abortions, to literally murder away their responsibility as a woman?
No, it's mem who can opt out by...working to take care of themselves like they always did.
Didn't you hear? We've been living in the Handmaids Tale since last year! I was a CHEESE MAKER! I made fucking cheese. But now I'm a soldier thrown into some Hitler remake god it's awful.
Women : But we want our slaves back!
There were rules to the game, men were the risk takers while women were the homemakers. Men had more 'power' decision wise and women's primary role was producing the next generation.
Don't come crying since you basically cheated the rules that men just refuse to play anymore. The really bad thing was that was a good deal for women and the feminists went 'but we want more with lower risks' so going back to that deal is going to be impossible thanks to bad faith.
Not impossible. It will simply require total capitulation, which women aren't going to offer.
Not until the house of cards come crashing down, that is.
it's never going to "crash down". there will be no day of reckoning.
day by day, you will wake up and they will gradually just be replaced by people who don't share these same values.
look at sweden and france. within the next 20 years, even if both countries completely shut off immigration, orthodox conservative muslims will be the majority. how long do swedish feminists think they'll have power when they wake up one day and the voting majority they imported believes that women are property?
and because it's the power of government, they will have no choice. london has already passed sharia in multiple forms. sweden/france are following too. denmark will be next. even israel is on track for jews to become a minority.
The deal would have slowly got worse for men regardless of women's actions. They just sped up the demise.
The deal was based off having a free maid, and as technology made that role practically worthless, even the traditional frame of marriage wouldn't have been worth it. The only time marriage was a gain was when you had to spend hours doing chores if you didn't have a wife. Now it's maximum an hour per week to clean, and thirty minutes to an hour to cook.
Right because that deal worked for thousands of years before that.
That doesn't disprove my argument.
"We used leeches as medicine for hundreds of years! What the fuck are antibiotics?"
Unfortunately true but the telling part was not that with this extra time did they try to find more ways to put back into the relationship whether as simple as a part time job, focusing on the home education of their kids than relying on the state or even self improved physically...
They decided to bitch and complain they didn't have more.
There's going to be a small percentage of women that do what I just said and they'll already be married, with kids not caring about any of this, but the feminists especially just showed their hand as soon as they had a bit more free time.
Pretty much. Outside of countries like Iran, in which w*men must submit to their husbands, marriage is a gamble: You might end up losing 50% or more of your money plus the time with your children.
50% is an optimistic estimate. What actually happens is the family court has a bunch of factors that determines who gets what and how much, and all those factors go in the woman's favor almost all the time. The only reason that divorce courts don't send men to the gallows when they're done is because it would deprive the bitch of the ability to steal his future income as well.
Ah, the "good life"
Men aren't "choosing the good life." They are giving up because the "good life" is gone. Liberalism has been in crisis for decades now. It is the reason the good life is gone in the first place. It only retains legitimacy at all is because of authoritarian (ironic) control of information.
Except most of those men who commit suicide/get addicted to drugs etc etc do it because of the consequences of a woman's action. Either they lost their careers over a fake harassment allegation, or they got divorced and lost everything.
Divorced men have an elevated suicide rate, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that job loss and suicide due to false allegations is particularly common. There is no way false allegations are costing men more jobs than outsourcing and immigration. Also, one of the biggest predictors of divorce is....the husband's job loss.
Yeah, and they dishonestly combine divorced men with never married men in the lifespan statistics so they can push the lie that married men live longer.
And 99% of studies on marriage have heavy selection bias to hide the fact that the majority fail.
Aren't you trying to defend women? That's a pretty large indictment of what kind of people they are.
Most men I've seen get fired, they got replaced by white women. The whole race factor is way, way over-exaggerated.
Not really, if the man's role is the provider, and he can't do that, the whole relationship is going to be in turmoil. One of tradcons' own goals is over emphasizing working a job (which you also do) over fatherhood in the home. They compound the problem by aligning with neoliberals whose solution to a bad job market is to shriek at people for being lazy.
It's funny how men have retained their role, while women dropped theirs.
There isn't a bad job market. There's a corrupt clique of women making sure that the majority of new hires are female. It has nothing to do with the market, because that implies some sort of natural consequence.
Both men and women have been pushed away from family and into labor because family life doesn't generate profit for globohomo. Men have been hit harder by automation and immigration, though.
Women aren't even the main owners of things. They mostly occupy middling positions.
What a load of crap. Women have been bribed near constantly to have kids, across the world. Longer maternity leave, protected group status for pregnant women, some European countries even have government subsidies for childcare.
Family life generates a ton of profit for banks because your entire life depends on satisfying a woman's ever increasing demands. I've said this multiple times - families and couples are more likely to run up debt than single people. If you really hate banks, you should be against bending to women's will. Still, I can't complain. Every sucker getting married is more debt and more profit for my bank stocks. At least they're useful for something while they screech at us that we aren't "doing our duty".
They occupy positions relating to recruitment and retention, mostly. Easy to weaponize.
I'll see myself out.
No fault divorce is de facto male fault divorce. You have to get rid of that all together, or at the very least purge the entire legal ecosystem that sustains family courts to eliminate the anti-male bias.
No, you go back to the old system where the man has custody. Princess might not be so cavalier about throwing her betabux in the garbage if she doesn't get to steal the kids and his assets.
That's actually a great idea. Despite all its bells and whistles marriage is a contract, so contract law should apply when it's broken. Right now one party (the woman) gets rewarded if the contract is broken regardless of who broke it or why they did so. It's little wonder that a woman's marriage vows are as credible as a junkie's pinky promise not to spend the rent money on heroin when her consequence for breaking those vows is cash and prizes.
Only fault divorce.
Imp I just want you to know that despite how hare brained you are usually, you're better than Tony around here.
If they really want men to come back to the marriage table they need to fix divorce laws.
Make it much harder to do and have fair financial outcomes so the man isn't the one that's almost always financially ruined.
And women are going to have to bring more value into the relationship. The whole "I exist therefore you must gibs" mentality isn't going to work anymore.
But she is the table you Nazi incel! Don't you realize that a fat single mother with an entitlement complex who bestows you with her presence has already done far more for the relationship than you could ever do and is therefore entitled to sit on her fat ass and cuck you on your dime while you raise Tyrone's kids?
Chicks literally think they should get money from men just for breathing
The funny part about this is the idea that there's not force to try and get men to comply. There absolutely is. The difference is that, compared to women, most men are capable of not caring and doing their own shit anyway.
Men realize that they alone have to live with their life choices and are less likely to be shamed into doing things that aren't in their interest by people who hate them. Especially since they can't open their legs for a bailout or run to Uncle Sam and get free shit.
>manhood, unlike womanhood, is something a person can opt out of
You can't opt out of manhood. Manhood is that you support yourself or you starve and freeze to death under a bridge. That's manhood.
Womanhood is bearing and raising a child.
Very easy opt-out.
Leftoids trying to work in collectivization like it was in "the Great Leap Forwards" or the Khmer Rouge.
Fuck you commies, we won't forget.
Loneliness is a compelling force, but to someone that hasn't drunk the incel coolaid one can see the tradeoff isn't always ideal.
Plenty of MGTOW would love to have families - or not have had their family stolen from them.