There is a solution. It just won't be implemented because we'd rather destroy human civilization than allow a single woman to be inconvenienced. Controlling women's Chad chasing like all functioning civilizations in history did would make the birth rate problem disappear. It's not the utopia that a lot of men imagine (women resented the fuck out of their betabux husbands and dead bedroomed them in old times too) but at least it was functional, which is more than can be said about the current clown show.
the right especially they pretend to be friends of men but they are very much on side with the TERF attitude towards men and constantly treat men as if they're the bad guys. Then they wonder why men want nothing to do with women and won't side with them generally.
That is because all civilizations despise weak men. The fact that the institutions cultivate weak men, and incentivize weak men, changes nothing.
This is basically the problem with Men's Liberation. You are never going to get the equality, and you are never going to get the sympathy. Men, literally, just have to become stronger and more stoic. Society acted like an abusive wife and berated men into becoming snake-bitten, thus proving the shit test true. Men just have to push right past it, and build the anti-parallel civilization that needs to be built from scratch.
Fascism and Monarchism can still, very much, promote weak men, and often do. This is because they are highly authoritarian, and authoritarianism promotes emotional incontinence as well as submission to the ruling orthodoxy or intuitions.
Nah. 100% wrong. They're aren't good women and bad women and there is no real filtering effect. There are good environments and bad environments. Women are whores in bad environments and they settle down and have children in good environments.
The fix is simple: no university, no career, no political office. no voting. why are they doing all of those things anyway instead of having children? Bring their options back in line with sane reality and build a healthy, positive environment around large families with both mother and father.
I agree with the general direction here but there's definitely a difference between bad women and less-bad women, and implying that they're merely a product of their environment just sounds like another way to spare them from accountability for their actions. If you're looking for a wife, you should be a little more selective than just "she wants to be a stay-at-home mom and have kids so she's perfect".
women are not having children because they have other options. they like those options: enslave men to the state and be a whore. get a job. go to university. obviously you have to remove their right to vote or hold office first and foremost, to get any of this done.
to fix the birth rate catastrophe, remove their options. No university. No career. No welfare. Submit to a man and begin having children.
when we're somewhere back to 4-5 children per family we can re-evaluate. maybe.
In an agrarian society children were assets, because they provided a workforce for the family once they got old enough. As the makeup of our society changed in the 20th century they shifted from an asset to a liability, with the only "return on investment" being that they will potentially care for their parents in old age, which is not guaranteed because our society doesn't place a heavy stigma on stashing your parents in an old folks home to die.
Faced with that reality, the only people having children are those that really want them for the sake of having a child in and of itself, and poor scumbags who don't practice birth control (see Idiocracy).
There is a solution. It just won't be implemented because we'd rather destroy human civilization than allow a single woman to be inconvenienced. Controlling women's Chad chasing like all functioning civilizations in history did would make the birth rate problem disappear. It's not the utopia that a lot of men imagine (women resented the fuck out of their betabux husbands and dead bedroomed them in old times too) but at least it was functional, which is more than can be said about the current clown show.
Pajeet, is that you?
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not tell users to kill themselves.
That is because all civilizations despise weak men. The fact that the institutions cultivate weak men, and incentivize weak men, changes nothing.
This is basically the problem with Men's Liberation. You are never going to get the equality, and you are never going to get the sympathy. Men, literally, just have to become stronger and more stoic. Society acted like an abusive wife and berated men into becoming snake-bitten, thus proving the shit test true. Men just have to push right past it, and build the anti-parallel civilization that needs to be built from scratch.
Fascism and Monarchism can still, very much, promote weak men, and often do. This is because they are highly authoritarian, and authoritarianism promotes emotional incontinence as well as submission to the ruling orthodoxy or intuitions.
Nah. 100% wrong. They're aren't good women and bad women and there is no real filtering effect. There are good environments and bad environments. Women are whores in bad environments and they settle down and have children in good environments.
The fix is simple: no university, no career, no political office. no voting. why are they doing all of those things anyway instead of having children? Bring their options back in line with sane reality and build a healthy, positive environment around large families with both mother and father.
I agree with the general direction here but there's definitely a difference between bad women and less-bad women, and implying that they're merely a product of their environment just sounds like another way to spare them from accountability for their actions. If you're looking for a wife, you should be a little more selective than just "she wants to be a stay-at-home mom and have kids so she's perfect".
OK, correct, but be explicit.
women are not having children because they have other options. they like those options: enslave men to the state and be a whore. get a job. go to university. obviously you have to remove their right to vote or hold office first and foremost, to get any of this done.
to fix the birth rate catastrophe, remove their options. No university. No career. No welfare. Submit to a man and begin having children.
when we're somewhere back to 4-5 children per family we can re-evaluate. maybe.
It's more than just that. The cost to raise a child from birth through college is now astronomical. This article says the per-year cost is 41% more in 2024 than it was eight years ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-kids-cost-raising-child-inflation-childcare-tax-exemptions-2024-1
In an agrarian society children were assets, because they provided a workforce for the family once they got old enough. As the makeup of our society changed in the 20th century they shifted from an asset to a liability, with the only "return on investment" being that they will potentially care for their parents in old age, which is not guaranteed because our society doesn't place a heavy stigma on stashing your parents in an old folks home to die.
Faced with that reality, the only people having children are those that really want them for the sake of having a child in and of itself, and poor scumbags who don't practice birth control (see Idiocracy).
This sounds like a bullshit number they made up to demoralize people from having kids.
We talking total cost or per year, because if that's total then that sounds really fucking affordable.
This and just making the economy and future prospects not shit. Rent culture and debt dont inspire people to make families either.