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".
Nick is a very talented guy, but being gay or at least bisexual, his perspective is a little biased. Yes, dude is gay. He had a date with a catboy and got caught with a tab of gay porn on one of his alts.
He is correct on the broad strokes, without a doubt, but I agree with you that kids are extremely valuable. Also, this concept is growing increasingly foreign and I get the feeling that many people here haven't even seen it in action, but there is such thing as a woman with her head screwed on straight, or at least as much as could ever be expected for a woman. The chance that Brittany Sellner is going to divorce rape Martin Sellner, for those of you familiar with alt-right personalities, is pretty low.
I sound a little pollyanna for these parts, but let me remind you we're talking about the survival of the human race. Artificial wombs aren't coming to save you.
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.
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.
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.
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.