https://rumble.com/v4ng5sr-njf-on-marriage.html
5 min clip
summary:
- you can't take risks
- you can't trade your comfort for resources toward a greater goal
- women have absolute legal power
- women have no obligations or duties in how they behave
- most of the masculinity exhibited by married men is performative and trivial
- every mechanism to control a wife's behavior is seen as "abuse"
Even knowing all of this, and generally agreeing with it, I still think the costs and sacrifices are worth it as long as you go in for the purposes of having children. Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
Probably, but it still comes down to a basic risk analysis. When a woman has the legal power to upend your life, take your home and half or more of your income, take your kids, take your pets, take your friends, possibly accuse you of things that will land you in prison, and do so with utter impunity and no risk to herself, the question of whether she actually will do that is secondary.
The problem is not that we think every woman would, but that any woman could. And that makes the risk too great.
That goes beyond even risk aversion, into societal suicide. Any woman could poison you as well, or just outright murder you, both possibilities exist. You risk being murdered every time you sleep when you get right down to it, that's why humans domesticated dogs. Life is risk.
If you aren't having children, the only way you're contributing to society is if you're a Tesla level genius inventor. And let's be real, nobody here is.
But if you demand that any and all risk to you be eliminated or else you won't participate in society, then you're going to get written off. Not to mention that that kind of unreasonable attitude is pretty much an exclusively female mindframe.
No one is demanding an entirely risk-free environment before they start dating again. What any sane man wants is a fair contract that enables both parties to pursue redress if one of them breaks it, and we don't have that. Women broke the social contract. It is not the responsibility of men to fix it.
And you aren't going to get that.
Life has never been fair for men, that's the entire purpose of the Y chromosome and why its instinctually considered the disposable portion of humanity, its designed to be filled with rapid mutations that fail or succeed and we don't even bother to mourn the failures because they are in fact meant to die off to improve the gene pool.
You don't have to accept their treatment of you, but whining about basic human evolution is exactly what women do until they are fat, eggless and broken.
It doesn't matter how much you talk about the hypocrisy in society and how badly men are treated. At the heart of it no one cares. Men have to be taught to do so, women are literally disgusted at the notion.
Its an unwinnable battle because its trying to logic an emotion.
Yes, men have mostly always done what they've needed to in order to reproduce and provide for their families in spite of the fact that the contract has never been fair for them. But right now they're not.
The behavior that recent generations of men, or at least large numbers of them, are displaying in reaction to this evolutionary predisposition to disposability is unlike any we've seen before, except in societies on the brink of collapse. All of which did collapse, usually accompanied by extreme demographic decline or extinction.
The idea that young men are going to keep doing what they've always done because biology predisposes them to do it is not borne out by the reality we're seeing. What's happening instead is that, as female privilege grows more and more unassailable, men are simply choosing not to interact with women, or at least not to reproduce with them.
So is this occurring for purely biological reasons due to population pressures, resource availability or environmental factors? I see very little evidence of that. And if you ask that increasing number of young men what their reasons are, most of them will tell you that it's because they're afraid to interact with women, or they don't think it's worth the risk. I don't think it's illogical to at least examine the change in societal circumstances that has led to that change in behavior.
We've entered the death spiral. Unless we have an upheaval event that re-establishes a hard patriarchy then the feedback loop will only continue. Social shaming is not going to fix things anymore than whining about human nature will. What we need at this point is a warlord who is willing to butcher every single whore and simp who doesn't fall in line with a new status quo of oppressing women. That's the ugly reality of where we are. Anything short of that is just going to be a whole lot of wishy washy feelings nonsense that allows the chasm between men and women to widen until our society disappears completely.
You did demand that. You said it doesn't matter whether they would but that they could, and that so long as they could the risk is too great.
The risk is too great for as long as the legal and societal framework exists that enables a woman to divorce-rape and destroy a man with absolutely no repercussions for herself. If you want young men to start marrying and having children again, then that framework needs to be dismantled first.
You can lecture young men all you want about their responsibility to have children and prevent societal suicide, but if you could motivate them by haranguing them, they'd be the most motivated demographic in the West by now. Instead, they're the least motivated, and whether it's bitching at them, bribing them or punishing them with a bachelor tax, you are never going to convince the huge number of young men who've checked out of society that it's their job to fix a mess they didn't make. You are only going to do it by showing them that their efforts will yield a positive return, and that means it's on the rest of us to start fixing what's broken first.
Okay, it seems we broadly agree on a lot here but this is a bit ridiculous. I want kids very badly and I'm young enough that realistically I will probably have them down the line, but the notion that you have to be Newton level to contribute to society is retarded. Be a good influence in your community, for your nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. and that is absolutely a positive contribution to society.
Why is it retarded? Sustainment of the population is at least three children per couple. If you aren't managing at least one kid, then your existence equates to nothing more than the consumption of resources.
The only people who truly manage to make significant contributions to society that justify their lives, are people who can contribute enormously to technology or else save hundreds of lives. Perhaps Tesla is an exaggeration but frankly for most people it's all or nothing, especially in our society of filler jobs and consumption industries.
If you can't see how there are plenty of other ways to be a net positive for society, I'm not sure how to get it through to you. People who produce food, build things, maintain critical infrastructures of a whole host of industries, the list goes on.
Sure, there are plenty of useless paper pushing jobs that probably shouldn't exist and don't really contribute much. But the notion that you have to be a super genius to contribute positively is bizarre, and that's coming from someone who is very adamant that people should strive to have kids despite the societal deck being steeply stacked against men.
Her kids. Ideally they'd be yours too, but there's no guarantee. The only thing certain is that the government will force you to pay her money because of them, regardless of who their father really is.