How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family;
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
immediate moment, you cut expenses.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
I'm not going to quote-reply you because it gets too messy, so just recognize your specific comments when I get to them. Marriage, as to say: pair-bonding, is always beneficial unless you are tying yourself to someone who is actually damaging or dangerous. Most of the time, even a loveless marriage actually still benefits both parties and particularly the children, if those parties were to actually do what I said and not entirely sabotage the relationship.
Woman's nature is not the nature of the state. Feminism pushed these changes because Leftists balkanized people and applied a Marxist dialectic, which they've been doing forever. Women's nature is to seek protection. Cucking men, caused women to reach out to the government, which is why the government embraces feminism as a mechanism of control.
Yes, rejuvenation is the point. That's what a good wife is actually going to do. A healthy relationship means you actually enjoy your woman and she can inspire her man. No, a dishwasher or a microwave does not replace anyone. This is actually a classic Left-wing economics mistake. Capital investment doesn't remove labor, it makes labor more efficient, which then requires less of that labor so the people working can do other things. No microwave can beat a woman cooking a healthy meal for her husband. A vacuum doesn't mean that a man doesn't have to clean the house, just that he can clean it faster. A woman with a vacuum means she can clean it at the same speed, but he doesn't have to do it at all, saving him significant time.
Evolutionary biology shows that Homo Sapiens are polyamorous, not polygamous. Pair bonding has always existed in every civilization, and in non-civilizations. Where hypergamy has existed, it was the result of authoritarian power structures. Harems are not the norm. Women aren't like birds which are biologically driven to not find another mate even after their mate's death; but that's not the same as being incapable of loyalty.
Yes, we do have to pull women's protections too, that's actually an essential feature. If women can be protected by the state, the state can give them a short-sighted offer to join the pharaoh's harem, but it will leave both men and women unhappy while fostering an authoritarian society.
You're removing men's agency when you're claiming that your "body pumps you with enough chemicals". My exact point is that modern men are wildly undisciplined. It's not impossible to resist some basic urges with discipline and stoicism. Men need to square themselves away, not get into any relationships, and only when they have the discipline and dominance for it, get into one relationship. Until then, buy a fleshlight or some shit. That's why feminists get really mad about sex bots. The "modern women" phenomenon is making it clear that a lot of these propagandized women don't have anything else to offer than what the sex bot does. Except they have worse personalities. As a stripper I talked to once said, "men don't typically objectify women, instead they personify objects as women." The fact that waifus are displacing women is not from a man's need for sex, but a man's need for a relationship, which they have a selection pressure over, but typically don't know.
I haven't misdiagnosed the problem. I'm actually saying that the solution is for men to work around it. Women aren't going to change because women operate in the aesthetic. Women change for men who can secure them. Of all of the former Leftist women I've spoken to, it was universally something like: "as soon as I got my boyfriend, I stopped hanging out with feminists. They seemed kinda crazy all of the sudden." That protection racket that the government establishes, it's inherently inferior to your own personal man that can do all of that for you, correctly, in a timely manner, and can also give you children. Men are way better than government or ideology, many women have just been propagandized, but their biological imperatives do push them in the correct direction.
On top of that, it isn't all women. In a scale of 1-10, my two friends who are both 1's just got married because there was no way the girl who was a 1 was gonna marry a 3. Yes, I know that cuckolding exists, but that's not normal for either men or women, just Leftists.
I'd agree that the two solutions aren't compatible, but an anti-natal position is a civilizaitonal death sentence, and maybe a kind of personal one too. "Women are shit, so let civilization die, and I'll be alone forever because fuck women" isn't even a mature, let alone reasonable, answer to any issue. Anti-natalism just can't be adopted as a solution across any society, and even individually it cultivates a personal sense of paranoia, depression, and fatalism. Anti-natalism is black-pilling.
Worse, anti-natalism is everywhere on the Left who genuinely want, and profit from, depopulation efforts. Again, an anti-natal solution is victory for the Left and death for civilization... all civilization.
There can't be a compromise on that. I'm not saying you must have kids if it ends up not being possible; but you can't give up and die.
I think anti-natalism is an underlying root of both the environmental movement, and may be a genuine desire of some of it's economic policies. The effects of inflation can be mitigated if you kill people, steal their assets, and introduce those assets into the economy. That's what the Nazis did to fight inflation, and was a major part of the Holocaust. Remember that there are tons of Malthusians in elite circles.
If you mean white people being a shrinking minority:
I don't, but we're closer to the same page on that. I think that it's the result of the sexual revolution, without the level of degeneracy that plagued the black community. If it wasn't for welfare for single mothers, I think blacks would have already demographically fallen off a cliff.
I'm not saying that "going back to trad times" is a solution, but what I'm saying is that the problems are within men's powers to fix, but that fixing society has to come from maximizing men's agency, dominance, and independence. Women will come along with those men, and the government & feminism would be undermined below it's foundation.
I don't think Men's rights is wrong for it's approach. I think it's just not the end goal. It's a limited utility tactic. It can only work to a finite degree if we get listened to. But frankly, we're not going to be listened to, so a more MGTOW approach, and a trad dominance would do more damage to the system. I actually do think almost everyone is capable of that. And those who aren't basically need to be carried by those that can (and those that can, need to be the majority).
How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
I'm not going to quote-reply you because it gets too messy, so just recognize your specific comments when I get to them. Marriage, as to say: pair-bonding, is always beneficial unless you are tying yourself to someone who is actually damaging or dangerous. Most of the time, even a loveless marriage actually still benefits both parties and particularly the children, if those parties were to actually do what I said and not entirely sabotage the relationship.
Woman's nature is not the nature of the state. Feminism pushed these changes because Leftists balkanized people and applied a Marxist dialectic, which they've been doing forever. Women's nature is to seek protection. Cucking men, caused women to reach out to the government, which is why the government embraces feminism as a mechanism of control.
Yes, rejuvenation is the point. That's what a good wife is actually going to do. A healthy relationship means you actually enjoy your woman and she can inspire her man. No, a dishwasher or a microwave does not replace anyone. This is actually a classic Left-wing economics mistake. Capital investment doesn't remove labor, it makes labor more efficient, which then requires less of that labor so the people working can do other things. No microwave can beat a woman cooking a healthy meal for her husband. A vacuum doesn't mean that a man doesn't have to clean the house, just that he can clean it faster. A woman with a vacuum means she can clean it at the same speed, but he doesn't have to do it at all, saving him significant time.
Evolutionary biology shows that Homo Sapiens are polyamorous, not polygamous. Pair bonding has always existed in every civilization, and in non-civilizations. Where hypergamy has existed, it was the result of authoritarian power structures. Harems are not the norm. Women aren't like birds which are biologically driven to not find another mate even after their mate's death; but that's not the same as being incapable of loyalty.
Yes, we do have to pull women's protections too, that's actually an essential feature. If women can be protected by the state, the state can give them a short-sighted offer to join the pharaoh's harem, but it will leave both men and women unhappy while fostering an authoritarian society.
You're removing men's agency when you're claiming that your "body pumps you with enough chemicals". My exact point is that modern men are wildly undisciplined. It's not impossible to resist some basic urges with discipline and stoicism. Men need to square themselves away, not get into any relationships, and only when they have the discipline and dominance for it, get into one relationship. Until then, buy a fleshlight or some shit. That's why feminists get really mad about sex bots. The "modern women" phenomenon is making it clear that a lot of these propagandized women don't have anything else to offer than what the sex bot does. Except they have worse personalities. As a stripper I talked to once said, "men don't typically objectify women, instead they personify objects as women." The fact that waifus are displacing women is not from a man's need for sex, but a man's need for a relationship, which they have a selection pressure over, but typically don't know.
I haven't misdiagnosed the problem. I'm actually saying that the solution is for men to work around it. Women aren't going to change because women operate in the aesthetic. Women change for men who can secure them. Of all of the former Leftist women I've spoken to, it was universally something like: "as soon as I got my boyfriend, I stopped hanging out with feminists. They seemed kinda crazy all of the sudden." That protection racket that the government establishes, it's inherently inferior to your own personal man that can do all of that for you, correctly, in a timely manner, and can also give you children. Men are way better than government or ideology, many women have just been propagandized, but their biological imperatives do push them in the correct direction.
On top of that, it isn't all women. In a scale of 1-10, my two friends who are both 1's just got married because there was no way the girl who was a 1 was gonna marry a 3. Yes, I know that cuckolding exists, but that's not normal for either men or women, just Leftists.
I'd agree that the two solutions aren't compatible, but an anti-natal position is a civilizaitonal death sentence, and maybe a kind of personal one too. "Women are shit, so let civilization die, and I'll be alone forever because fuck women" isn't even a mature, let alone reasonable, answer to any issue. Anti-natalism just can't be adopted as a solution across any society, and even individually it cultivates a personal sense of paranoia, depression, and fatalism. Anti-natalism is black-pilling.
Worse, anti-natalism is everywhere on the Left who genuinely want, and profit from, depopulation efforts. Again, an anti-natal solution is victory for the Left and death for civilization... all civilization.
There can't be a compromise on that. I'm not saying you must have kids if it ends up not being possible; but you can't give up and die.
I think anti-natalism is an underlying root of both the environmental movement, and may be a genuine desire of some of it's economic policies. The effects of inflation can be mitigated if you kill people, steal their assets, and introduce those assets into the economy. That's what the Nazis did to fight inflation, and was a major part of the Holocaust. Remember that there are tons of Malthusians in elite circles.
I don't, but we're closer to the same page on that. I think that it's the result of the sexual revolution, without the level of degeneracy that plagued the black community. If it wasn't for welfare for single mothers, I think blacks would have already demographically fallen off a cliff.
I'm not saying that "going back to trad times" is a solution, but what I'm saying is that the problems are within men's powers to fix, but that fixing society has to come from maximizing men's agency, dominance, and independence. Women will come along with those men, and the government & feminism would be undermined below it's foundation.
I don't think Men's rights is wrong for it's approach. I think it's just not the end goal. It's a limited utility tactic. It can only work to a finite degree if we get listened to. But frankly, we're not going to be listened to, so a more MGTOW approach, and a trad dominance would do more damage to the system. I actually do think almost everyone is capable of that. And those who aren't basically need to be carried by those that can (and those that can, need to be the majority).
Bro, did you get this from ChatGPT?
Be honest - you are among friends...
Stop being a worthless shill for your cause. People can make arguments that disagree.
So your opinion is a good opinion, but mine makes me a worthless shill.
Sheer perfection of a comment. Thank you. You cannot plan for moments like this. This is too easy.
Excellent answers. Almost every single statement in between what you covered could be ripped apart in similar fashion.
Have a fake internet point.