Reversing the Demographic Winter

I found this documentary via reddit which found it via thinking housewife. It discusses an issue of deep concern to the dark enlightenment and that is the issue of population decline. For what I guess is a mainstream documentary, it is refreshingly frank with regards to the negative consequences modernism/post-modernism is having on our culture and subsequently population. Big factors in this decline and identified by the doc are feminism, the break down of sexual continence, divorce friendly laws, and promoting careerist women (mostly discussed in part 2) All of these things work together to destroy the family and set off a runaway effect of ever decreasing fertility. Watch it, it is pretty good:

Part 1

Part 2

As the documentary shows, it isn’t just white Europeans that are having fertility declines even if they are are most advanced in said decline (with the exception of some Asian countries). Even the countries which supply the current batch of immigrants to the west may not be able to keep that up if the same trends advance in their countries and they are only lagging by maybe 20-30 years behind the west. The whole white genocide meme put forward by identitarians may end up needing an overhaul and be redefined as human genocide. Actually, I think it is better called human suicide than genocide as it is mostly a voluntary action. Not to discount the fact that it is intentionally inspired cultural marxism, but people do assent to its ideas more or less voluntarily. It is an interesting idea to think that the immigration issue may be resolved by fertility drops in the rest of the world, though I am not holding my breath on that one. Lots of people worry about Muslim fertility, myself included, but Iran for example has one of the worst fertility crises in the middle east. Clearly this isn’t a European only problem. It is a global problem with various groups merely at different stages of it and with a few particularly disturbing exceptions to the trend. Though most of that population will probably remain confined to their current locations.

Of course,  I have written several posts tangentially related to this. Of Madonnas and whores is one, shrug is another. The first is on how a culture which has a healthy fertility rate is structured and the other is on how men should respond to the current horribly designed structure. It occurs to me that these two posts probably appear on the surface to be at odds with one another because one attempts to reverse the problem while the other attempts to exacerbate it. However, there is a method to my deep and frightful madness. I refer you to the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog into luke-warm water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will swim merrily and make no attempt at escape until it is too late. However, if you drop the frog into water that is already very hot it spends its few remaining moments among the living desperately attempting to escape. (I have never actually attempted to boil live frogs, so maybe they don’t act as described, but the analogy creates a vivid picture anyway and is thus rhetorically useful.)

The analogy demonstrates that it is the nature and speed of the transition which is the governing force of the response to the change rather than the destination of the change itself. A jarring transition spurs reaction, while a slow transition results in docile acquiescence. The purpose of articles like shrug is to create such a sudden and uncomfortable transition in our culture that it becomes fertile for introspection and ultimately action. Well, hopefully the correct sort of reaction like that described in Of Madonnas and whores and other articles. By magnifying the problems faced by both family destroying women and the state, you may, just may, catalyze some pragmatic thinking. Not to mention sparing as many individual men from the machinations of the state as possible.

Of course I am just some trivial blogger who very few people read. : ( My articles are likely to be quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe not. There are a lot of men in positions which make them quite receptive to a new and sympathetic view of their situation that not only successfully diagnoses their problem, but also suggests some sort of solution. It is that last part that is most important. Men naturally want solutions. If there is a problem in their lives, they are much more likely compared to women to take some sort of unilateral action. Even if there are downsides to that action in this situation, the alternative is something akin to slavery. Worse maybe because of the culture of contempt directed towards so-called “dead-beat dads.” Therefore, the level of acceptable costs and downsides with respect to the working of the divorce industry are quite high. Even more, many men are likely to accept a great deal of problems if it means they can ensure that the state and the parasitic ex-wife come up empty handed merely as a result of well-deserved spite.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which must be dealt with before men shrug en masse and inflict a painful jolt on the system. Men have to be ideologically deprogrammed. Both social conservatives and the cultural marxists demand sacrifice from men for the sake of women and children and indoctrinate them accordingly. Sacrifice of men for those groups isn’t so bad when it is paired with the rewards and assurances given them in a traditional context. It was merely a more or less fair contract. The dominant culture on the left and “right” have decided that they can get away with taking those rewards and assurances away without any consequences. Well, we already know that didn’t turn out to be true, but even with the current consequences things seem to be accelerating leftward rather than reversing. Perplexing that. It seems that the consequences haven’t been severe or blatant enough which is why it is probably still the time of creative destruction rather than direct building (outside of individual properly patriarchal families, a difficult thing to achieve today even for the most skilled). Acceleration towards the left singularity has continued unaltered because of the so far effective ideological indoctrination men face from both the left and “right.”

The incentives that should result in men exiting en masse are already well established and have been for a long time. The only thing keeping them around is the tiny thread of cultural mind control; a thread that is ripe for the cutting. This indoctrination mainly revolves around questions of what is and isn’t moral. So long as good men believe that exiting from the unfair arrangement is immoral, they will be loathe to do so regardless of the cost to themselves. In shrug, the question of the morality of exit is directly addressed, although briefly:

I can think of the obvious objection [with respect to exit from alimony and child support]: “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Well, I am. I am thinking about children (and the whole family), but I have escaped myopia and took a view that extends all the way to the horizon. Children are done a huge disservice by easy divorce. It is a fact that they are better off when their parents stay together until at least they grow up. So long as the system exists in the current state, the only thing we can be sure of is that millions more men and children will be caught in its clutches in the future. Suffering will only increase and increase. Anything that lets the system of easy, no-fault divorce with the concomitant asset division last even one week longer than it has to is immoral.

In a properly functioning society, going after fathers who shirked their duty is a just imperative. We don’t live in a properly functioning society. These days it is rare that family breakdown is caused by men unwilling to be fathers. Worse, they have absolutely no power to prevent the destruction of the family that causes so much suffering to everyone, especially children. When family breaks down, it is not their fault. Such men are thus morally guiltless for leaving. As much should be explained to them and they should be encouraged to shrug. The men who willingly continue to pay into this system are essentially complicit in its perpetuation, at least once they understand how it works. They are just like Hank Rearden who through his diligent efforts kept the morally bankrupt society going that much longer than otherwise had to be. He did this despite emotional torture by his ungrateful family and incrementally increased injustice towards him by society. By keeping the current system solvent, today’s men ensure that more men in the future will be dragged into it. By shrugging, they bring the day of its collapse closer and ensure that less children will ultimately be caught up in it. Continuing to pay into the system, judged by the number of future men and children who will be dragged into it by its continuation, is thus itself the height of immorality.

In other words, it is the demands society place on men without compensation or assurance that is immoral. Men not only have a justification for exit, they are morally obligated to demand their dues for their sacrifice because if they do not they are dooming future generations to the perdition caused by incorrigibly capricious women and the ever more greedy state. If they are not given what they are owed, they must exit as a moral imperative. The elucidation of pragmatic morality here cuts the thread of indoctrination and prepares men psychologically for the difficult decision to pursue exit as the difficult solution to their involuntary servitude. The sting of mass exit would then ultimately facilitate some move back towards tradition.

At least this is the theory. Why should anyone listen to someone like me? Well it seems that at least one person has. Though I am not a MGTOW myself, I subscribe to the subreddit because they sometimes have interesting links. If anything, MGTOW philosophy will just make the demographic winter even worse so ultimately it has no promise as an effective strategy for a better future. Anyway, I stumbled on this self post which stated:

Frankly, we need to be very specific here about a certain aspect of going your own way. I’m looking for that direct insider info strictly speaking of alimony and child support obligations and uprooting and leaving it all behind.

Has anyone up and left, and the consequences be damned? Like, as in – I Don’t Give One Single Fuck what the ex, or the courts are gonna do to me type of attitude.

Seriously looking into this, if the statistics of non-payment of child support are such that “billions of dollars have gone uncollected” Then I must be living a delusion that I will in-fact go to jail for non-payment, and this can all be managed in a way that we can call their bluff and move on with our lives.

So speaking of what did you do, how far did you move? Out of county, out of state, out of country? How far did the legal system pursue you in your new found location? What and who did you leave behind? What would you have rather actually kept and/or sold or left behind? What legal ramifications were the result of leaving your “free-range prison” behind? (Think alimony, child support, garnishments, mortage, etc.) Were you able to successfully break free forever? Or did you come back and have to pay the piper? How did you hide assets like a home, or your money from being legally stolen from you? Would it have been a better idea to keep the home and rent it out while away, or sell the home because of the headaches, ramifications and hassle while gone? How have your children taken the change, and have you managed to keep in touch? Has the ex held them back from keeping a relationship with you because you are no longer paying for the extortion known as child support? Has she kept the children from relatives while you are gone? How much better was the new life compared to the old life? Any other comments or words of wisdom we could all potentially glean from you that aren’t covered here?

We are not discussing the morality of such decisions, or how you came to get to this point. We all come to our own point of no return, and I for one, and you yourself do not deserve to be ground into dust with no recompense for the rest of our lives.

Of course this reminded me of my shrug article so I told him about it in a comment to which he replied:

You have a really great website! I’ve read that article before too, and re-read it.

Flattery aside, I feel a bit like I may have opened pandora’s box (it was bound to be opened eventually by someone). If we take the 1% rule seriously, then there may be at least 100 more men out there somewhere who read that article and took it to heart and are seriously considering implementing the suggestion. That is assuming I have seen every instance of a re-post of this article, which I probably haven’t and would mean there are more than this. Of course, even if they don’t act on the idea it is in their head and they will think about it regularly because they will be faced with their burdens regularly. They will also likely spread the idea to other men (with or without linking back to me) and some of those men will act. The redefinition of appropriate moral response to the current divorce regime could eventually have significant repercussions and things will get worse generally before they get better. I have, in concert with the efforts of many others, engaged in black magic. What is and is not moral is changed to be a more accurate representation of reality. Moreover, from what we know about moral signaling behavior this redefinition could spread quickly and rabidly if it becomes entrenched in some dedicated minority. Considering the current incentive structure, such a result might be expected. People will fall all over themselves to do the right thing in the eyes of their peers, especially if they have overwhelming personal incentives rarely present in other moral signaling games.

All I can say is that I hope my appraisal of the situation is correct and that this action brings closer the light at the end of the tunnel. If I’m wrong about this, though I don’t think I am, then the spreading of the idea could result in some difficult to reverse consequences. Either way, what is done is done and the lid can not be put back on the box. At the very least, progressive culture will suffer mightily for ignoring gnon. Most importantly, though, individual men will be more likely to free themselves from involuntary servitude and that is a positive moral change even if that is the only positive change that results.


Here is another self-post titled “How to shrug at the family courts and evade slavery.” Though I didn’t ask him if this had anything to do with my article in my comment, the wording suggests he had read it.

Share Button

Career women are dysgenic

All Parts
<– Part 3                                                              Part 5–>

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.

<– Part 3                                                             Part 5–>

All Parts


Share Button

Of Madonnas and Whores

There is a lot of discussion in the manosphere about the Alpha/beta dichotomy. It is usually phrased as “Alpha fucks/Beta bucks”. Actually, it is a central tenet of red pill understanding and has been verified by evolutionary psychology. In short, it is a description of instinctive female mating strategies. All women want to have children by and investment from the top tier, highest quality men.* All women having children by top tier men is more or less feasible, but all women getting investment from the same is mathematically impossible. Women who, for whatever reason, aren’t able to secure the commitment of a top tier man must employ a compromise strategy if they want both commitment and good genes. They will get impregnated by the top tier man, but secure investment from a second rate man. This can involve outright deception and persuading the man to believe the child is actually his. Alternatively, if a woman is unable to hide this from the provider male, she may also have some children by him to sweeten the deal. However, his resources will be equally spread over all her children including the ones that aren’t his, which is a bad deal for him. In short alpha = good genes combined with low commitment and beta = bad genes combined with high commitment. The alpha/beta dichotomy mating strategy is employed by medium to low quality women to get the best of both types.

What isn’t talked about much, and should factor heavily into neoreactionary thought, is that men have a mirror dichotomous mating strategy. The mating strategy is called the madonna/whore dichotomy. Understanding the concept of whore should be obvious since we are surrounded by vast quantities of them in this decadent age of decline. Basically, a man can never be sure a child of a whore is his since she sleeps with so many different men, so he has a high probability of wasting his resources by investing in her children. A man will bed whores because it doesn’t cost him much to give her his genes so long as he can make himself scarce afterward. Men shouldn’t marry or commit to a whore, ever, because those that do usually lose the evolutionary game. This is so important that men have naturally evolved the instincts to objectify and even feel disgust towards such women as a mechanism to prevent commitment. Lust might push a man to sleep with a whore, but after all is said and done men often can’t wait for the whore to get as far away from them as possible and never return. This isn’t an accident. Men are protected from wasting their resources on children that aren’t their own by these feelings of anti-commitment. Contrary to popular opinion, disgust toward the idea of commitment to whores is the correct attitude for men to have and it should be encouraged.

The madonna on the other hand is quite rare, at least in the wake of leftoid destruction of society. A madonna is a chaste and loyal woman who a man can be reasonably sure bore his children. Men instinctively know that their children stand a better chance if they stick around, but they can only risk staying around for a woman of high moral character. A Madonna gives him the opportunity to invest in his children with low risk of paternity fraud. This is a good opportunity for him because the chance of successful reproduction of his children in turn is much higher if he directly invests in them. If a man meets a woman who he perceives to be a madonna, he will correspondingly develop feelings for her and try to commit since among all the possible mating strategies, that gives his genes the greatest chance for further reproduction in the next generation. In short Madonna = high paternal confidence combined with high commitment; whore=low paternal confidence combined with low commitment.

Humanity benefits greatly when most men engage in the madonna mating strategy. A man’s investment in his children is not affected by the law of diminishing returns. The more he can invest, the more fit his children are. Therefore, he has a very strong incentive to be much more productive than he otherwise would be and to look for any method or technology that might increase that productivity further. The increased productive labor and technological development of the entire population of men combines synergistically to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Everyone benefits from a productive and prosperous civilization that can only result from the combined cooperative efforts of all men.

Tension arises between the contrasting alpha/beta mating strategy and the madonna/whore strategy because whores gain tremendously if they are incorrectly perceived as Madonnas. Deception in mating thus offers a very large reward to individual women. This results in a population sized prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone benefits significantly if women as a population are faithful to whatever man they can actually get to commit. However, individual women can gain tremendously on top of the benefits of civilisation if they can have children by a high quality man while convincing another to invest in them. The problem is that should a large enough percentage of women cheat, men eventually figure it out (or evolve) to be more reluctant to commit and without enough men working past their individual needs civilization falters. In essence, this is a free rider problem in which women want the benefits of civilization, but do not cooperate with the needs of the group to make civilization possible.

Addressing the problem of female free riders has thus been universal to all human cultures that have developed civilization. Usually the prescriptions for chastity and commitment have come associated with religious or spiritual belief. Religious and moral systems are the cultural solution to an intractable biological problem. Since the reward for cheating is and always will be high there is no scenario in which evolution could naturally eliminate the trait, therefore cultural methods for suppressing free riders must be omnipresent and strict. Anything less and civilization becomes unstable. I can’t help but wonder if Eve’s part in tempting Adam in the book of genesis is an allegory for the sequence of events that culminate with the destruction of civilization. First women fail to cooperate, then men refuse to participate, and finally we are all thrown out of Eden…

What we experienced in the 20th century was the triumph of the free riders over civilization. The culture that was indispensable for suppressing the free riders was hijacked and turned on its head. Not only does culture now fail in its primary pro-civilizational mission, it actively discourages women from cooperation and makes it as easy as possible for them to cheat their responsibilities. No fault divorce combined with asset division, defining fatherhood as something other than biological, and banning paternity testing all allow free rider women to commit paternity fraud with minimal amounts of deception. Redistribution policies to mothers, and especially single mothers, allow free rider women to do away with any pretense of cooperation entirely and coerces all productive men into being de facto cuckolded beta providers. The near universal desire by women to advance the feminine imperative is nothing less than the collective failure of women to resist the greedy temptation to eat of the forbidden fruit. The cost of this failure is civilization itself and there can be no greater price to pay than Eden.

If there is any hope of restoring the cultural potential for an expansive and prosperous civilization, society must be optimized such that a maximum number of men willingly engage in the madonna mating strategy. For men to be willing to do this, marriage must be made appealing to men. To be appealing, men have to be unambiguously made the authority of the household and must be immune to financial ruin resulting from the incorrigibly capricious nature of women. In addition, humanity must culturally frustrate the evolutionary potential of free rider mating strategies. Social exclusion and refusal of the state to subsidize single mothers should provide sufficient punishment and disincentive.** The divorce laws need to be biased to favor men by default. If there isn’t clear evidence of extreme wrongdoing on his part, then the wife must be given a raw deal for breaking her vows. Is this unfair to women? It doesn’t matter. The only morality is civilization, and civilization is only possible when men are willing to marry because it works in their favor.


High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

** Widows whose husbands died untimely early deaths could be excepted.

Share Button

Marriage as a business contract and the case for father custody

Sunshine Mary stopped by to voice her concerns about the hypothetical traditional community I proposed in my “who is the true enemy of neoreaction” posts (part 1, part 2). First she brought up that premarital promiscuity in males increased the risk of men cheating.

Hello, I’m not neoreactionary but I’m interested in these topics, so I hope you won’t mind if I offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

First, the problem is that a man’s previous sexual history does, in fact, affect his marital stability. In the study that Social Pathologist cited, it didn’t affect divorce stats the way it did for women, but Susan Walsh compiled this data from the GSS data:

If you’re going to build a community with a bunch of burned-out PUAs, statistically they’re likely to be all over each other’s women. I don’t think that’s going to make a stable society. (I wrote about this in an old blog post, if you are interested: )

This is partially addressed here.  I fully concede that there are a variety of reasons to discourage male promiscuity.  However, as elaborated in that post, there hasn’t been much work on demonstrating that male premarital promiscuity leads to higher divorce rates and so I am not convinced that it should be on the list of reasons for male chastity. If premarital promiscuity does lead to greater male infidelity post-marriage, but not to increased risk of divorce, that would be an interesting finding to say the least. Though it would be consistent with the red pill understanding of female psychology as well as empirical evidence. If a man is attractive enough to be able to cheat, that demonstrates his high value to his frustrated, but now more interested, wife.

She then goes on to bring up a very important point about child support:

Second, I understand the impulse to eschew state-based marriage because it seems like that should clear up cash-n-prizes frivorce, but in fact it doesn’t do so if there are children present. Dalrock has concluded that the problem is primarily child support payments, and whether or not there was a legal marriage, a man (or theoretically a woman) will still be ordered by the courts to pay child support, which is the real incentive. So relying on the absence of legal marriage won’t work; you have to think through how you’d deal with child support issues.

I expanded a bit on my original reply for this post:

Though the label of the image isn’t very clear, it seems to be trying to indicate that more sexual partners increases the risk of men cheating during marriage and this may be true, but doesn’t necessarily mean the men will divorce their wives or stop providing for their families. That is the actual standard of importance for men in marriage.

The problem is the idea that men and women are equivalent and bring the same assets to the union. In marriage, women trade their sexuality for male resources and provisioning. This is to give him a guarantee that the children he is providing for are in fact his. Women do not trade their sexuality for male sexuality because under no circumstances will women ever be able to doubt that their children are theirs. On the contrary, many women seem to prefer men with previous partners because it provides evidence that he is high value. Without the potential cost of accidentally raising another woman’s child, women can afford to be more tolerant of their husband’s dalliances.

[assuming marriage 1.0] A woman’s greatest possible failure in a union is infidelity because when she married that is the resource she willingly traded to her husband. Post marriage, he owns her sexuality and the products thereof exclusively. A man’s greatest possible failure in a marriage is the abandonment or inability to provide for his wife and children. Post marriage, she (and her children) own his provisioning exclusively. Infidelity on the part of the wife is a breach of contract and forfeits any claim she has on the products of his labor.

As a matter of principle and in the interest of harmony it is a good idea to strongly discourage male infidelity, but the relative gravity of the transgression is not as large as female infidelity. This is why I stated in my post that for men, sexual history is more optional. Leniency here wouldn’t destroy the community in my opinion. Though this is technically true, I certainly understand principled rejection of PUAs from the hypothetical community. More likely than facing PUAs off, though, I suspect you will have to decide to accept or reject men with a few to moderate level of previous partners (not true PUAs), so it wouldn’t be as clear cut.

I agree that in the current situation child custody is a problem. The only way around it for this hypothetical community would be for them to band together and collectively resist any attempts by the state to enforce such payments, similar to how the farmers resisted the abduction of their cattle. A single man would not succeed by himself.

In marriage 1.0, it is the man’s duty to provide provisions for his wife and children, not the wife’s. Should a wife destroy the union, his biological children should be awarded fully to the father who will provide sole support as it was always his sole responsibility per the original marriage contract. When he married, the man purchased the ownership of his wife’s sexuality and any children that result from that sexuality in exchange for his provisioning. When a husband and wife separate in marriage 1.0, the wife has no claim on the children. They aren’t and were never hers. Does this place a significant burden on men? Yes it does, but living up to high expectations and prevailing in difficult situations is what men do. It is their traditional role. So long as they are systematically and fairly rewarded and acknowledged for their efforts, there is no reason not to expect men to shoulder a larger burden than women. In addition, fully ejecting the woman who destroyed her marriage from the community implies that she should not even be allowed to see the children. If this sounds harsh to you, keep in mind that this is SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, it has to be harsh.

Trying to pull some small amount of money from her isn’t worth the cost of the community continuing to interact with her. Even today where women are “liberated” men as a group generate most of the wealth so it is very unlikely that chasing after her will yield much anyway. It is better to simply accept that the man will have to shoulder all of the burden, but at least they get the full benefit of taking on the extra responsibility by having complete and sole access to their children.

Now, it is true that every situation is different and there are and would be cases where the husband is at fault. A competent arbiter would probably be needed to evaluate such situations and make rare exceptions when needed. However, without compelling evidence that a man had somehow failed his duties of material support, custody should be awarded to fathers by default.


Share Button

“It just didn’t happen”

Cat Lady by Lisa Monica Nelson

Cat Lady by Lisa Monica Nelson

No affiliation with See more artwork at this website.


A few months ago, I went out with a group of friends for a few beers. Among them were these two women (let’s call them Jane and Mitzi) who spontaneously broke out into a conversation about a third woman (Let’s call her Amy) who had left earlier.

Jane was telling Mitzi about how she and Amy had been hanging out regularly, mainly to go to the gym. Amy had told Jane a little bit about herself. She had very strongly wanted children for a long time, but did not appreciate that it might not happen. However, now she is 40, single and the chance that she would ever be able to have one is very low and she knows it. She focused on having a good career during her youth, and unfortunately, that meant she had to do a lot of traveling and moving, thus never was able to secure a guy who would commit. Without other opportunities available at 40 she is committed to that trail. Her most recent attempt involved moving to Florida for a guy, but he turned out to be a “douche-bag”. Hmmmm.

Of course, her explanation for never successfully forming a family is “it just didn’t happen”. It wasn’t that she has undesirable personality traits for being a wife and mother and couldn’t get a guy to commit. It wasn’t that she wasted the prime fertile years trying to be the best wage slave possible. No, her ability to form a family was completely and totally dependent on larger society acting on her. In her own mind, she has hypoagency. It isn’t just prig progs who assume hypoagency in women; women themselves rarely take responsibility or control for the outcomes in their lives.

And in the past, this might have been legitimate to feel hypoagency. Before feminism began its destruction of society, there were many, many social safeguards to prevent women from ending up childless. The entire community had certain values, and her parents and other family and church would have tried to steer her the right way; not any more. Unfortunately for her, feminism has destroyed the safeguards that could have prevented her from becoming a spinster.

Interestingly, Mitzi and Jane had this discussion in utmost seriousness. They were legitimately concerned and fearful (understandably) that they could end up childless spinsters as well. They didn’t come out and say they were worried it might happen to them too, but you could tell by their tones and serious demeanor that something was really striking a nerve. I don’t discuss red pill concepts in these situations, but concealing my schadenfreude wasn’t easy.

This isn’t the first time I have heard the line “it just didn’t happen”. This seems to be common amongst ~40 year old spinsters. There is even a woman at work in the same situation who used the exact same line. If women can’t accept responsibility for the consequences of their own choices and those choices frequently lead them to objectively bad ends they find despairing and outsiders find tragic, then it makes sense to relieve them of the power to make these mistakes.

The woman who has not had a child remains incomplete, ill at ease, and more than a little ridiculous. She is in the position of a man who has never stood in battle; she has missed the most colossal experience of her sex. Moreover, a social odium goes with her loss. Other women regard her as a sort of permanent tyro, and treat her with ill-concealed disdain, and deride the very virtue which lies at the bottom of her experiential penury

~H.L. Mencken

Share Button

The common scolds of America

Then was the Scold herself, 
In a wheelbarrow brought, 
Stripped naked to the smock,
As in that case she ought:
Neats tongues about her neck
Were hung in open show;
And thus unto the cucking stool
This famous scold did go.

“In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a species of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarreling with her neighbours.” The punishments for being a scold entertainingly included the cucking stool and the scold’s bridle. Though this law has long since died, the concept of a scold likely seems unexpectedly familiar even to men newly introduced to it. It is impossible for a man, and American men especially, to go through life without experiencing his fair share of inexplicably quarrelsome women.

The definition of the common scold can, with little semantic difference, be expanded to include those women who manifest a hyper-sensitivity towards remarks and opinions that, even if objectionable, can’t fully account for her reacting with an acute hysteria. Even seemingly minor transgressions (or non-transgressions) can trigger the scold to escalate from calm to irrationally enraged at a rate that defies the laws of relativity. The behavior of the scold in this state of mind can be described as nothing less than a temper tantrum you might expect from a young child.

Though it is possible to find women meeting the definition of scold in most cultures and times, experience suggests there is an epidemic of cases among the fairer sex on the North American continent. The problem finds its beginning in the lack of discipline these precious princesses experience in their early formative years. Many were raised by single mothers who aren’t able to provide the authority and structure that fathers provide. However, there are undoubtedly complete biological families who also failed to teach young girls to refrain from having tantrums. Why should a young princess restrict her attitude of entitlement if she is always indulged with everything she wants any time she screams and stamps her feet? Though there are many good reasons to abandon the short-term, high time preference rewards of tantrums that some in-depth self-reflection could provide, a striking number of ladies seem to lack sufficient cognitive aptitude for such abstraction.

Is there a reason that boys seem less afflicted by this particular perversion of personality? A young man who is spoiled at home can expect a very rude awakening as he enters the wider world. His peers won’t hesitate to identify and express dissatisfaction with any untoward behavior he displays, thus providing a mechanism to cure him of his poor temperament. Unfortunately for young, attractive women, they will never experience much push-back from their peers until much later in life after their sexual market value starts to decrease significantly and by then it is likely too late to do much good.

Indeed, a young woman’s peers are usually guilty of worse than mere indifference toward her antics. When upset by some trivial matter, the scold will often recruit a willing accomplice or accomplices to do anything risky. These ubiquitous white knights will harass and possibly try to fight the alleged offender without giving any real consideration to the validity of her offense. Some of the more egregious white knights don’t even require an active recruitment on her part. This extreme version of the female supplicator might just observe her hysteria and take it upon himself to come to the rescue despite not knowing her from Eve. That a woman is upset for any reason, no matter how trivial, is reason enough for him to take action. The mindless defense of excessive female sentiment invariably results in needless grief for many blameless men.

In one of many experiences I have had with this phenomenon, I was out with my friend and a group of people he knows including the heroine of this anecdote. The first point where I could see that this young scold was troublesome and prone to quarreling with her neighbors was when she brought up a contemporaneous debit card hacking thefts from Target and other stores in order to perform a vitriolic diatribe. Being keen to participate in the group discussion, I made the innocuous observation that while the hacker’s actions were wrong and deserving of punishment, the technical mastery he required to accomplish the crime was undoubtedly impressive. That a person engaged in criminal activity could demonstrate impressive skills was too much of an abstraction for her and thus provoked her to reveal her quarrelsome nature in the form of various insults towards me. Fortunately, another member of the group mollified her by explaining that a person may simultaneously have concepts with both positive and negative connotations associated with them without there being a contradiction. The emotional “reasoning” of many females seems to stumble when confronted with this fundamental, yet subtle, truth. However, though the third party adequately explained that being impressed by something doesn’t mean you condone the act, I am not convinced that it was anything more than a mere Pavlovian response to the attitude of multiple peers which doused her temper rather than a true comprehension of the nuance involved.

Later that same evening, we were all sitting around a table and out of blue our heroine pointedly asks me “What were the longest relationships you were in?” Seeing no immediate need for subtlety or outright dishonesty I responded frankly that “2 years was my longest relationship, but to be fair it wasn’t with an American woman.” Dear me, this was not a tactful thing to say to the common American scold as they will in their solipsism invariably interpret any comment or statement to be descriptive of their own person. Though there were signs she was getting ever so huffy, to my discredit I was hopelessly oblivious to the volcano preparing to erupt before me. Responding to her quite earnest desire for clarification, I elaborated on the fact that I find most American women difficult to get along with for anything longer than a fling given that so many are common scolds (though I did not use this terminology at the time). To this her barely contained rage erupted with a rabid desire for acrimonious verbal combat, yet her rage was too great to craft more than a small sum of suitable slurs and so she simply stomped off somewhere to succor her now sore psyche.

Of course this would not prove to be the end of this anecdote. Our resident white knight decides to step up to defend our heroine’s fragile ego since she found herself lacking the skill to patch this bit of cognitive dissonance. Sir lancelot starts by trying to lecture me about what kind of opinions I am allowed to have and what I am allowed to say. Not being a pussy and possessing an acute loathing of white knights, I was quick to assert that he had no authority to lecture me or to define the acceptable range of opinions I was allowed to possess. Our heroine’s knight in shining armor was so prepared to defend her “honor” that he had the audacity to threaten me physically if I couldn’t be otherwise cowed. Though, or perhaps because, I made it clear I was prepared to accept his challenge to fisticuffs, the tense moment eventually passed without coming to blows and the night continued without further incident. To escalate this absurdity to even greater heights, Sir Lancelot did all this despite his Guinevere being foreign born.

Probably all men, or at least all American men, have experienced this sort of situation as a result of the unruly and irrational emotions of the common American scold. The question is, when the institution of patriarchy is restored because of necessity, what can the new order do to reduce the number and severity of the disturbances to the public peace caused by such women and their valiant saviors? I think that English common law, as detailed in the introductory poem and links, sets a fine precedent of how such socially disruptive backbiters can be disabled. When a queen of histrionics and her knights of the unstable are identified, the punishment used to correct the bad behavior should be focused on public shaming and minor physical discomfort. Such chastisement is an appropriate response to the indignities caused by common scolds because the guilty would likely be easily reformed for the public good with only a few treatments. This is especially true of the most egregious version of the common scold currently in existence, which are of course the feminists who acrimoniously agitate for social norms that destabilize and eventually destroy civilisation. A few public dunks on a cucking stool for the most heinous of these harpies would humanely cure them of their hysteria and thoroughly deter any other would-be agitators.

‘There stands, my friend, in yonder pool,
An engine call’d a ducking stool:
By legal pow’r commanded down,
The joy and terror of the town,
If jarring females kindle strife,
Give language foul, or lug the coif;
If noisy dames should once begin
To drive the house with horrid din,
Away, you cry, you’ll grace the stool,
We’ll teach you how your tongue to rule.
The fair offender fills the seat,
In sullen pomp, profoundly great.
Down in the deep the stool descends,
But here, at first, we miss our ends;
She mounts again, and rages more
Than ever vixen did before.
So, throwing water on the fire
Will make it but burn up the higher.
If so, my friend, pray let her take
A second turn into the lake,
And rather than your patience lose,
Thrice and again repeat the dose.
No brawling wives, no furious wenches,
No fire so hot but water quenches
In Prior’s skilful lines we see
For these another recipe:
A certain lady we are told,
(A lady, too, and yet a scold)
Was very much reliev’d, you’ll say,
By water, yet a different way;
A mouthful of the same she’d take,
Sure not to scold, if not to speak.
Benjamin West – 1780

Here is a video rendition of the above poem:

EDIT: I found some more common scold poems and jokes:


Some women take delight in dress,
And some in cards take pleasure,
While others place their happiness
In heaping hoards of treasure.
In private some delight to kiss,
Their hidden charms unfolding,
But they mistake their sovereign bliss,
There’s no such joy as scolding.

Each morning as I ope my eyes,
I soon disperse all silence,
Before my neighbours can arise,
They hear my clack a mile hence.
When at the board I take my seat,
There’s one continued riot;
I eat, I scold, I scold, I eat,
My clack is never quiet.

Each night whene’er I go to bed,
I always fall a weeping,
For silence is the thing I dread,
cannot scold when sleeping.
But then my pains to mitigate,
And drive away all sorrow,
Although to-night may be too late,


Observe, fair Celia, all in all,
Mild, beautiful and young;
‘Tis true; but then her mouth’s so small,
It cannot hold her tongue!


“Yes, my son.”
“In olden times a woman who was a common scold was punished, wasn’t she?”
“Yes, my son. So was the man she married.” — Yonkers Statesman.


Kesouse! the stool went down again,
Into the slush-ice splashing;
But still the bag, with never a gag,
Kept up her vile tongue-lashing!

Kesouse! a third time for the charm,
Down to the very bottom;
But worse and worse the drab to curse
Begain with a “Dod rot ‘em!”

Kesouse! Now let the stool stay down,
And save us futher trouble!
But still her tongue assailed the throng
In every rising bubble!

Until the ice of Februer,
Closed firm and fast above her;
And her corse, cut out perforce,
None can but death discover!

When, hark! upon the cooling-board,
The corse begain to cough;
And then her jaw, the first to thaw,
Went on where she’d left off!

The ducking-stool at once condemned,
Was into kindling cut;
And the mouth of the scold of the days of old,
Has never since been shut.

Except beneath the ice of death,
To be opened sometime later;
When the corse on the board again is heard
In her begotten daughter!

But who was the scold? Ah, helpless wight,
No longer worry and bother;
But go to your home and meet your doom –
She was your dear wife’s mother!


Share Button