Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

The false life plan

Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.

The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.

So girls followed that plan. With the result that the male plan (get a career and what you need to support a family, and a good wife will show up) stopped working. So males stopped working. And here we are.

Girls should be taught the female life plan, in domestic science classes, and in the stories they see on television.

Women have a natural tendency to hypergamy, resulting in the mating patterns of chimps, the ghetto, and some primitive tribes. Successful civilizations come down hard against this mating pattern, which necessarily requires that they come down hard on females, the uncontrollably lustful sex, systematically treating them as in substantially greater need than men of control, protection, and protection from their own selves, treating them all as Medeas, Pandoras, and Eves. The very least we can do it tell girls that the life plan that leads to this outcome, leads to the outcomes that it does. (more…)

Marriage, supply and demand

Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013

The old deal, legally enforced before 1857, and socially enforced before 1960, was that a man got:

  1. The role of head of household.
  2. Marriage for life.
  3. Not to be denied sex by his wife.
  4. A bride who gives him her youth, virginity, and submission.

This gave all males a powerful incentive to build civilization for their posterity, to invest in the future and in themselves.

The deal has been endlessly changed to be worse, and yet supply and demand tilted ever further in favor of women

Before 1857,  women were eager, indeed frantic, to sign up for the deal, and men considerably less enthusiastic

In 2000 or so, however, a women in her thirties, her pussy saggy from being pounded by hundreds of high status charismatic manly males with big tools, had no difficulty getting some poor loser to sign up for a deal where he is apt to lose all his assets and his children.

Although the deal got steadily worse for men, most women are happy to have one thirtieth of a high status male, leaving the other twenty nine males lonely losers. Hence the high male demand for marriage, even on highly unfavorable terms.

Note that when I say high status, I don’t mean high status as males measure status.  Women assess status childishly, like four year old children who say “my daddy can beat up your daddy”.  Thus the guy in jail for rape and murder gets unsolicited pen pal letters from hot chicks who want to meet him in person, while the guy in the corner office who landed the account of a major corporation does not.  In general, a woman is only apt to sleep with her boss’s boss when her boss actually demands she do her job, and successfully gets her to do it, thereby demonstrating his superior status.  While men settle their status differences quickly, and then get on with the job, a woman always pushes back, always testing a little, always pressing a little, which makes them profoundly disruptive when you allow them into an organizational hierarchy.  They are superficially more compliant than men, but they never stop pressing, never stop testing, and these days it is almost impossible for a male to pass the test without being guilty of sexual harassment.  One way to press on and test her boss, is to sleep with his boss.  If, on the other hand, she succeeds in walking all over her boss, as she usually does, she is apt to satisfy her hypergamous impulse not by sleeping with his boss, but by sleeping with a thug.  Thus the declining rate of boss fucking, and the increasing rate of thug fucking, indicates the collapse of discipline within organizations.  Women are less and less inclined to view organizational status as real, because when they press on it, it is not real, whereas men regard organizational status as real, partly because unlike women they do not get special legal status, partly because men are less inclined to keep on pressing, but mostly because of who signs their pay checks.  Men perceive a job as a deal where they do stuff that people want done and get paid for doing it, while women perceive a job as boyfriend and family.  When their boss is not nice to them they want a divorce with alimony and the house their boss fired but they should keep the office and the paycheck

Absent legal and social enforcement of monogamy, there is a massive surplus of males and shortage of females.  At age thirty or so, this tends to become less unbalanced, as the highly desirable males don’t particularly want to poke used up old women, with the result that women become willing to reluctantly and regretfully settle for males who are willing to commit, when formerly if any male was so desperate as to give indications of willingness to commit, they would have turned up their noses at any loser so desperate as to offer commitment.  Indeed, I can say from personal experience and direct observation, that if you are a man and want to marry young, you must give not the slightest indication of interest in marrying young, or indeed ever.

Patriarchy with polygyny causes similar problems, as the absence of patriarchy.  There is massive homosexuality among Pashtun males for lack of women, but the big problem that needs control is women wanting better, not men wanting more.  A society that allows hypergamy is more messed up than a society than allows polygyny.

The only way to make supply equal demand is to enforce monogamy, and since females are the uncontrollably lustful sex, the big problem is enforcing monogamy on women.  When a girl is young enough and pretty enough get plowed by Mister One in Thirty, she is happy to have three percent of Mister One in Thirty.

To maximize male investment in posterity and the future, need to share out one man per woman, and one woman per man, something that is forcefully resisted both by women and by high status men, but the resistance by women is the harder problem..

At some point the deal gets so bad, that increasing numbers of men just give up, contenting themselves with porn, whores, and whiskey.  We are now approaching that point.  The massive decline in male participation in the labor force is a measure of the problem.

The age of marriage can be considered to be approximately the marriage price.  Marrying an old woman is what a man desperate to get married pays for marriage.   Conversely, marrying young and staying faithful, thus giving up all that alpha cock, is what a woman desperate to get married and stay married pays for marriage.  Age of marriage is the price matching supply and demand.

If shortage of wives, if wives are in high demand, women do not respond to that demand.  Instead women ride the cock carousel until they notice that they no longer need an abortions every couple of months, and start worrying about their fertility, so, obese and pushing towards forty, hop off the cock carousel to condescend to reluctantly marry some lucky guy.

If shortage of husbands, girls start figuring who is husband material at age sixteen, and worry that if they kiss a boy, or wear unduly sexy clothes, they will get a reputation for being easy and no one will marry them, and they do their best to get married when they are at the age of peak hotness, which is to say, very young,which was roughly the  situation before 1820 or so.

Suppose that Uncle Sam the Big Pimp ceased paying women to spawn bastard children, that all the numerous subsidies from men to women are ended, except the subsidy that a man is expected to support his good, obedient, and faithful wife, that all the sex quotas for women to take the career track were ended, so that any woman on the career track would forced to compete with men on equal terms, which of course most women cannot do except at the lower end.

Suppose that illegitimacy is disgraceful for both mother and child.  In China, illegitimacy is fined instead of subsidized.  If they can punish them, so can we.

So suddenly a lot more woman would want to get married.  Presumably all those who would in today’s order be spawning bastards, would instead be looking for husbands, thus approximately doubling the supply of potential wives, relative to the supply of potential husbands, since about fifty percent of children are fatherless.   In addition, approximately one third of generation X wound up childless who had not planned on being childless, presumably career tracked and distracted by the cock carousel, so a more conservative environment would roughly triple the supply of prospective wives relative to prospective husbands.

So women would have to offer more – more youth and chastity, or else get left on the shelf.  The age of marriage would then drop, to equalize supply and demand.

Monogamy, of course, would also require a lot of cheap housing.  In most states, to subdivide land and build housing on it requires environmental review that no one can possibly pass except by political pull and massive bribery.  In those states where it is reasonably possible to subdivide, notably Texas, housing is cheap, family formation is correspondingly high, resulting in people voting conservative.

Reasonably priced housing of course also require that police and private citizens would be allowed to profile, to prevent whites from being ethnically cleansed.  In most of America, whites are being ethnically cleansed, depriving whites of reasonably priced housing.  The reverse phenomenon, gentrification, occurs in places like San Francisco where the left piously looks the other way and encourages, indeed directs, the police to act like jackbooted Nazi thugs.  Ethnic cleansing occurs when black thuggery is indulged, but white self defense is not permitted, as happened most infamously in Detroit. Gentrification occurs when elite members of the left, finding their elevated selves are being preyed upon by non asian minority thugs, finding their bubble is frighteningly small and alarmingly permeable, tell the cops to go hog wild and supply law and order to those that profile as disorderly and lawless, San Francisco being an extreme example of such left wing hypocrisy.

There is a positive feedback effect (readers of this blog, unlike our “cognitive elite”, know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback).  The more supply and demand favors women, the less they practice monogamy.  The less they practice monogamy, the more supply and demand favors women.  So society tends to flip between two states, the state where males, marriage, and commitment is in high demand, and most children have fathers, and the state where most males are surplus to requirements, have no incentive to contribute to or protect society, and most children are fatherless.  Civilization only gets built in the condition where males, marriage, and commitment, are in high demand.

On what used to be called marriage

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

On what used to be called marriage back in the days before marriage was something disgusting that gays did to épater les bourgeois.

My personal observation is that every successful marriage is quietly and furtively eighteenth century, so thoroughly politically incorrect as to be illegal.

And a little reflection reveals that the New Testament/eighteenth century form of marriage, in which both parties give consent to sex once and forever, and the wife submits to the husband, is simply the only kind that can work.

All is fair in love and war.

Love is a battlefield

Love is war.

If the male does what is best for himself, and the female does what is best for herself, the outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for both parties.  To solve this problem, the New Testament commands an indissoluble contractual commitment to mutual support, and sexual availability, so that, once married, you are stuck with each other, for better or worse, and required to have sex according to the other’s desire.  “Marital rape” is not only permitted, but absolutely mandatory. This contract changes the incentives, creating an incentive for good behavior, among other things giving the man the ability and incentive to invest in his children.  (more…)

The ancestral environment of females

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

The collagen in old bones of humans shows stable isotope levels similar to that of the old bones of wolves and hyenas, indicating that humans ate at the same trophic level as wolves and hyenas or higher, that is to say, the same position in the food chain or higher, which implies that almost all the food was meat, which implies hunting mattered and gathering did not matter, which in turn implies that women were kept like pets for their sexual, domestic, and reproductive services, that women were incapable of supporting themselves and were entirely dependent on fathers, brothers, and husbands, not only for protection, but also for food.

Women are psychologically adapted to this environment, an environment where they are property, perhaps much loved property, and if they are virtuous and lucky, more loved than a good hunting dog.  Such psychological adaption leads to disturbingly counterproductive and self destructive behavior in the more favorable present environment.

Women are ill suited to make decisions about their own lives, because in the ancestral environment they did not get to make such decisions. (more…)

The problems with Laissez Faire sexuality

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

In traditional society, women were strongly encouraged to refrain from sex before marriage, and marry responsible men with good jobs who were able and willing to support a family.

Today, women are encouraged to follow their hormones, which tends to result in them have offspring with a long succession of sexy males who disappear, often into jail or dying violently, and who often rough them up and steal their money before leaving.

Bryan Caplan correctly argues that the non traditional family does not necessarily harm children, because the low conventional success rate of children from such families may well reflect them behaving like their fathers, who have a different standard of what constitutes success, and may well be very successful by that standard – more chicks banged, less time wasted from nine to five, and more enemies maimed.  Further, women who choose to have a non traditional family presumably prefer it – there can be little doubt that the sex is hotter the badder the boy.

Now this is a good deal for alpha males, and lots of women argue it is a good deal for women, but it has a sizable externality, in that it encourages male behavior that causes problems for other men, and produces children that cause problems for other people.  Bastards are bastards. The production of bastards creates large external costs.  Encouraging fidelity, chastity, and female preference for responsible mates, even though their hormones tend to cry out for demon lovers, reduces other people’s costs – in traditional society the costs to fathers, uncles, and brothers of grown women, in modern society the cost of the welfare state, in all societies the cost of crime.

The welfare state reduces the costs of hormonal female behavior to parents of those females, since the cost of bastardy is externalized to the rest of society to a greater extent, and thus reduces the incentive of parents to inculcate their daughters with traditional values and deprecate the natural behavior of females – the natural inclination of women being more towards the demon lover.  Women can be socialized, pressured, and monitored into fidelity to males that materially support them and help raise their kids, but it takes a firm hand and a watchful eye.  While Islamic society takes this to extremes, the other extreme, total neglect of this problem, has costs also.