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".
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.
Its not. In fact, the reasons are pretty well obvious and documented. We should always be combating them as best we can. In fact, I've spent decades doing so as I was an Anti-Feminist before most people here were born and I'll speak your ears off about the sheer depths of how fucked society is in that regard.
The illogical part is thinking it will ever get "more fair," or even thinking anyone cares when the unfairness of it crushes you. The entire history of the MRA, and all its various iterations, has been infinite failure because it tried to convince people to care about men and the unfair system we have placed on them.
When the final truth is that your only options are to carve a hellish path through the world to pass on your genes to the future (and with it preserve your knowledge and gotten gains for your suffering) or let all that die with you waiting for the "perfect balanced chance" like a woman growing eggless and fat waiting for her Mr. Right.
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.
That's just the thing. No one is "shaming", by telling people the truth.
Pouting and refusing to participate in society is self defeating. Worse even, since it guarantees that you won't ever get what they say they want.
Pointing this out is not "shaming", though I constantly see that word being thrown about to deflect. If they feel ashamed it's because in their hearts they know they're wrong.
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.
Nope, not how this works.
You aren't the one with the power here. You aren't in a position to make demands.
While we're on the way, the situation likely won't be resolved in our lifetimes. You have two choices. Try, or give up.
You have given up and want to encourage others to do so. Problem is, that's the only way to actually lose the game. If you aren't going to have children, then you don't matter, you're giving up your vote on what the future looks like. Because once you're dead, you're meat. You'll have no legacy.
If I take your premise on it's face, that you want women's rights abolished, then your actions are self defeating towards that goal.
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.
Tell me some then. Afterwards we can discuss the sheer amount of resources that a single human life costs over their lifetime, resources that one person likely doesn't live up to on their own over their lifetime.