On the inversion of male and female forms

and its impact on declining fertility and marriage rates

This post discusses the corruption of the masculine and feminine forms necessary for pair bonding. Intense and sustained societal pressures have attempted to subvert and invert these forms. A sober assessment of the situation can hopefully offer (1) assistance in pushback against these forces and (2) to set and frame expectations for relationships with those who are in the throes of such negatives pressures (i.e. most women) if one decides to pursue it.

As discussed previously, fertility rates in Western countries are on a massive decline. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the rising cost of raising a family is not really one of them; poor people have more children than rich people, wonderfully reflected in the opening scene of Idiocracy, and many who live in abject poverty survive on welfare and have plenty of children.¹ Rather, the core reason is the empty nihilism brought about by the death of God - why have children, why not focus on hedonism, if there isn’t a bigger purpose to life and if there aren’t distinctions between superior and inferior? Having children is a metaphysical decision even if societal and familial pressure plays a role; it speaks to an optimism about the future, a willingness to sacrifice for that future, the desire to propagate one’s beliefs, the desire for community and love, that has been completely drained out of modern life like a dying animal drained of blood.

This post will focus on a particular aspect of declining fertility rates: the push by globohomo to corrupt the masculine and feminine forms: to invert what it means to be a man or woman, to turn men into women and to turn women into men, manifested currently as transsexualism, but this push has been ongoing for well over a hundred years to prevent pair bonding necessary for marriage, procreation, and familial development. I have touched on this previously by covering the different conceptions of marriage in patriarchal vs. matriarchal societies and how those conceptions affect fertility rates, but this will tie the argument together further.

Um, no.

We will look at this in a number of ways: (1) examining traditional gender roles; (2) exploring the propaganda and financial motives to invert these roles; and looking at (3) dating, (4) marriage, and (5) divorce in the modern era.

As a preface, the following discussion does not apply to all men or women. It offers generalizations based on how men and women are generally based on bell curves; there are always people at the extremes that don’t conform to such norms, such as the existence of highly masculine women (I’m looking at you, Big Mike) and highly effeminate men. So thanks, Billy, the fact that you know someone who doesn’t conform to the following generalizations does not mean that the exception disproves the rule. I appreciate the pre-offering of that take, Reddit is this way.

All Schopenhauer references below are pulled from his essay “On Women”.

Schopenhauer was a great and wise man, even if he never married or had children

Okay, let’s begin.

---

Gender roles are natural

Victor Joseph Étienne de Jouy wrote, “Without women, the beginning of our life would be helpless; the middle, devoid of pleasure; and the end, of consolation.” Women are much better than men at nurturing, at offering empathy, at living in the moment and at play than men are, per Schopenhauer: “The woman lives more in the present than the man, and that, if the present is at all tolerable, she enjoys it more eagerly. This is the source of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to women, fitting her to amuse man in his hours of recreation, and, in case of need, to console him when he is borne down by the weight of his cares.”

Even though women are generally much more emotional than men, they generally feel less deeply than men. They are lyrical creatures with bodies not meant for difficult physical exertion, as seen how any freakish transsexual easily beats women at sports. I remember when a male tennis player ranked 200 beat the #1 and #2 women in the world at tennis with no warmup and no real exertion. The German player reflected on the match he played against Serena and stated, “My first game of the afternoon, just a one-set match, was against Serena. We were out on one of the backcourts at Melbourne Park, No 17 I think it was. I felt so relaxed that I didn’t even warm up properly. We started playing and I raced into a 5-0 lead.” Amazing women, fantastic girl power you have going there.

Karsten Braasch with the Williams sisters

Women are stuck in an intermediate stage between child and adult, per Schopenhauer:

Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short−sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long—a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full−grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word. See how a girl will fondle a child for days together, dance with it and sing to it; and then think what a man, with the best will in the world, could do if he were put in her place.

A man matures much slower than women do, but that is the natural course of things. Creatures that mature more take longer to do so than creatures that mature less:

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty−eight; a woman at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort—very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. For it is by virtue of his reasoning faculty that man does not live in the present only, like the brute, but looks about him and considers the past and the future; and this is the origin of prudence, as well as of that care and anxiety which so many people exhibit.

Both the advantages and the disadvantages which this involves, are shared in by the woman to a smaller extent because of her weaker power of reasoning. She may, in fact, be described as intellectually short−sighted, because, while she has an intuitive understanding of what lies quite close to her, her field of vision is narrow and does not reach to what is remote; so that things which are absent, or past, or to come, have much less effect upon women than upon men. This is the reason why women are more often inclined to be extravagant, and sometimes carry their inclination to a length that borders upon madness. In their hearts, women think that it is men's business to earn money and theirs to spend it—−if possible during their husband's life, but, at any rate, after his death. The very fact that their husband hands them over his earnings for purposes of housekeeping, strengthens them in this belief.

Thomas Buckle said, “Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.” Women by and large love to talk about persons/gossip, doing so in a droning, endless running commentary. They also love to shame each other; they do not generally feel guilt (internal sense of right and wrong) but they do feel a strong sense of shame (external imposition of right and wrong). This is why “slut shaming” works. Women generally hate each other and tear each other down, viciously and without remorse, but they do so indirectly and passive aggressively, trying to avoid bearing responsibility for their actions.

You’re so mean, girls

Schopenhauer argued that women have no sense of justice because their weaker form forces them to be experts in the art of dissimulation rather than justice:

Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, and for this very reason they are so quick at seeing through dissimulation in others that it is not a wise thing to attempt it with them. But this fundamental defect which I have stated, with all that it entails, gives rise to falsity, faithlessness, treachery, ingratitude, and so on. Perjury in a court of justice is more often committed by women than by men. It may, indeed, be generally questioned whether women ought to be sworn in at all. From time to time one finds repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, taking things from shop−counters when no one is looking, and making off with them.

Perhaps this is why in Islam a woman’s testimony is codified as being worth half that of a man.

Unlike women, men naturally congregate into hierarchical communities organized around goals. They are much less likely to infight, much less likely to gossip or backstab, and they are both much more direct and much wore willing to escalate to violence given they are so much more physically stronger than women. Men are much less likely to treat lower status people poorly than women are, per Schopenhauer:

Whilst a man will, as a general rule, always preserve a certain amount of consideration and humanity in speaking to others, even to those who are in a very inferior position, it is intolerable to see how proudly and disdainfully a fine lady will generally behave towards one who is in a lower social rank (I do not mean a woman who is in her service), whenever she speaks to her. The reason of this may be that, with women, differences of rank are much more precarious than with us; because, while a hundred considerations carry weight in our case, in theirs there is only one, namely, with which man they have found favor; as also that they stand in much nearer relations with one another than men do, in consequence of the one−sided nature of their calling. This makes them endeavor to lay stress upon differences of rank.

Despite men’s much greater efficiency and sense of justice, society correctly cares about men much less than it cares about women (see the great expression, “men are expendable, women are perishable”). Women who transition to men are shocked and complain about how they completely disappear in society’s eyes once they transition, even if they were ugly women before. Men are nothing if they don’t have status, and this makes sense; one man could impregnate a thousand women, so the vast majority of them are expendable. There is a statistic that women are far more likely than men to attempt suicide but men are much more likely to carry it out (cry for attention versus task fulfillment).

As an evolutionary strategy men have a much longer tail on their bell curve for many traits — including intelligence, aggression, creativity, etc. — which allows men to experiment much more in strategies that, if successful, increase their reproductive potential. Men are at the cutting edge of all technological innovation, they hugely disproportionally make up inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs, and women join these organizations at a later date once consolidation sets in. For example, either all or almost all of early Bitcoin and cryptocurrency adapters were men. All the great inventions and artistic masterpieces were made by men. But men are also much more likely to be homeless and have mental health issues. Men are also far more likely to die in industrial accidents, as they are wildly overrepresented in dangerous professions. Per Schopenhauer:

And you cannot expect anything else of women if you consider that the most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere. This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours—and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view. It is quite in keeping with this that ordinary women have no real susceptibility for art at all; for Nature proceeds in strict sequence—non facit saltum. And Huarte in his Examen de ingenios para las scienzias—a book which has been famous for three hundred years—denies women the possession of all the higher faculties. The case is not altered by particular and partial exceptions; taken as a whole, women are, and remain, thorough−going Philistines, and quite incurable.

---

The propaganda and financial pushes to invert these historically

Women are natural conformists to society’s norms, and they work hard to defend these norms. Because the west’s norms are based in egalitarianism, women are very defensive of this status quo, and they regularly imbibe Current Thing propaganda which has gotten exponentially worse since women mass-adopted smartphones in 2012, coinciding (coincidentally?) with the epoch of a new era per the Mayan calendar, because it dramatically shortened and sped up the feedback loop of shitliberalism.

The route to Hell is paved with women using smartphones

Women are generally shallow creatures whose emotionalism is easy to hijack with visual propaganda; show them photos of dead babies or dead animals and offer them a false solution to the problem and they will seize on it and demand it unequivocally. Men are much less likely to be fooled by propaganda than women are. Schopenhauer:

The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more kindness and interest; and why it is that, on the contrary, they are inferior to men in point of justice, and less honorable and conscientious. For it is just because their reasoning power is weak that present circumstances have such a hold over them, and those concrete things, which lie directly before their eyes, exercise a power which is seldom counteracted to any extent by abstract principles of thought, by fixed rules of conduct, firm resolutions, or, in general, by consideration for the past and the future, or regard for what is absent and remote. Accordingly, they possess the first and main elements that go to make a virtuous character, but they are deficient in those secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in the formation of it.

Remember: extending sympathy regularly past the family/friend level inevitably lends to “sympathetic blowout” where one doesn’t have the sympathy reserves to offer it to the people in your life who deserve it the most.

Now, when the societal norms are manipulated against women’s best interests, they have little to no defenses against such tactics. Globohomo has manipulated women since at least the end of the 19th century with so-called “women’s liberation”, both with work and with voting. They have attempted with great success to invert traditional gender roles rooted in evolution and biology, which has led to a tremendous amount of misery.

According to Trading Places producer Aaron Russo (who was dying of cancer at the time) the upper levels of globohomo including the Rockefellers created and pushed “women’s liberation” as a way to break up the nuclear family and to double the size of the workforce and hence the tax base. It was not a ground up effort, it was imposed from the top down. This is a three minute clip of a much longer interview:

This wasn’t done for women’s benefit; it was done to enhance the power and control of the central bank owners. And women generally vote for liberals, for “security” at the expense of liberty (to which they end up with neither²) and always for expanded government.

Inverting the male and female form sets female instincts against their natural roles. On a biological level most women deeply want to be mothers. They turn into crazed cat ladies, doubling down on insane liberalism when they aren’t able to do so. Plenty of women go to college or graduate school simply as a status signaling activity and then promptly get married and have kids, drop out of the workforce to become “Mrs. Degree” as soon as they are able to do so - and they are smart to do so, because that is what their biology demands! This would be a good result!

But society tells women that they aren’t complete without working, that merely being a mother is low status and beneath them. So women are torn; their biological desires are in conflict with their intense desire to conform to societal expectations (i.e. the expectations that globohomo sets). This will be discussed below further, but society tells women to put off having children as long as possible, to climb the corporate ladder, to engage in and care about politics, maybe have kids in their 30s, to “lean-in” (per Sheryl Sandberg) and to have their cake and eat it too.

She does not have your best interests at heart, ladies

But plenty of women lose the opportunity to ever have children as a result of this horrible messaging, and they are utterly unfulfilled by their work even if they tell themselves otherwise. They get fooled into thinking that because men are in the workforce, that is somehow better than being a stay at home mom, that work has intrinsic value — the men are hiding the best things in life from them, therefore be like a man and beat the system! They don’t understand that work sucks, men generally don’t like doing it but do it in order to support a family. See here for detailed rant on this, as the process of unhappy women working pushes men out of the workforce and prevents them from being able to pair bond to form a family, which results in a snowball effect of more unhappy women and more unemployed men and fewer families. It is a sad situation. And women generally aren’t very good at work either - by operating in a masculine work environment they almost always either become either pushovers or too-brittle and too-aggressive. Finding the golden mean between these extremes is exceedingly difficult for them. I know only a few women who have managed to find that center spot.

Meanwhile television and film push women as superhero kung-fu fighters, offering impossible one dimensional characters, 100 lb 5’2” women who toss around 6’5” muscled men casually. Mainstream media also pushes men to become much more effeminate with no masculine role models, only weak/dumb men like Homer Simpson who get bossed around by the superior women in their lives. This has contributed to men being unwilling to fight for their values, with much lower testosterone levels and higher rates of depression. Young men in particular need role models to model their behavior after, and the best that society provides today is Muslim sex trafficker scam artist Andrew Tate and crybaby weakling Jordan Peterson. Sad.

The American male role model

According to Schopenhauer, giving women too much influence and power inevitably leads to the downfall of society:

“In the Politics Aristotle explains the great disadvantage which accrued to the Spartans from the fact that they conceded too much to their women, by giving them the right of inheritance and dower, and a great amount of independence; and he shows how much this contributed to Sparta's fall. May it not be the case in France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the fruit? However that may be, the false position which women occupy, demonstrated as it is, in the most glaring way, by the institution of the lady, is a fundamental defect in our social scheme, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must spread its baneful influence in all directions.”

---

Dating in the modern era

Women love the interpersonal dance of mating rituals, per Schopenhauer: “And so we find that young girls, in their hearts, look upon domestic affairs or work of any kind as of secondary importance, if not actually as a mere jest. The only business that really claims their earnest attention is love, making conquests, and everything connected with this—dress, dancing, and so on.”

Just as men try to acquire status by mastering aspects of reality, women try to acquire status by mastering the conquest of men. I have seen many men, masters of their work domain and very wealthy and powerful, controlled by their angry, perpetually unsatisfied woman. Schopenhauer:

A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated—a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.

Schopenhauer warns not to “put the pussy on the pedestal” or to “white knight” women, commenting on this perennial issue 150 years ago. Women are not deserving of men’s veneration, for while they appear to beta and omega Reddit-tier males as untouchable Goddesses needing protection, those who actually know and understand the nature of women know that they do not deserve anything like this veneration:

But in the West, the woman, and especially the lady, finds herself in a false position; for woman, rightly called by the ancients, sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honor and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and be on equal terms with him. The consequences of this false position are sufficiently obvious. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number−Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter, but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well. It is impossible to calculate the good effects which such a change would bring about in our social, civil and political arrangements. There would be no necessity for the Salic law: it would be a superfluous truism. In Europe the lady, strictly so−called, is a being who should not exist at all; she should be either a housewife or a girl who hopes to become one; and she should be brought up, not to be arrogant, but to be thrifty and submissive. It is just because there are such people as ladies in Europe that the women of the lower classes, that is to say, the great majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East.

I don’t want to focus on the dating aspect in this post too much - it’s been done well elsewhere - but basically, modern society has unleashed unrestrained female hypergamy where women want the top 5% of men, and all other men they see as invisible. This is a result of a lot of factors, but especially the weakening of organized religion which enforced community norms and restricted female sexual rights and behavior, along with the advent of nihilism and ubiquitous access to birth control and abortion³, topped off with widely accessible generous welfare that allows a single woman with a child to survive without support from a man. Who needs a stable, supportive beta male provider when the government will step into that role instead?

Women desperately want a 6’3” handsome alpha Chad — and most women can get this on dating apps (the average woman will be overwhelmed with a deluge of responses from hundreds or thousands of men, leading to massively inflated expectations and ego), but only for a short term, casual hookup. A study shows that the top 5% of US men account for more sex with women than the bottom 50% (but these men pay a big price for staying on the sexual marketplace and racking up hundreds or thousands of lays). In any free market, the top few companies end up with monopolies or oligarchies and they cut off access to the market by others — that’s how it naturally evolves. And the sexual marketplace is no different. Many short, unattractive “beta” males have created fake online dating profiles as a top 5% male and have been shocked at how direct and degrading they can be toward women and by and large women are eager to give them whatever is demanded. Most women do not care how men talk or act toward them; they simply want Chad. Here’s a discussion about it. Other men have tried to mimic alpha behaviors and become “pick-up artists” to limited success, a phenomenon discussed here.

Women don’t consciously understand this process, though; they don’t understand that Chad is more than happy to pump-and-dump them but will not commit to them, and being pumped-and-dumped by Chad too many times sours their relationships with men in general. The concept of “brain cum” is real (see here for a concurrent take and here for a semi-critical take); sperm can cross the blood/brain barrier and get lodged in the female brain, impacting their ability to pair bond with future partners. A man traditionally demanding a virgin bride has been confirmed by science — a woman with no body count, no alpha Chad brain-cum lodged in their brain, is going to form a much stronger pair bond than non-virgins *generally*, and the higher a woman’s body count, the harder their ability to pair bond. This is also basic common sense, which has been seen as déclassé since the rise of globohomo.

In a better case scenario, women approaching “the Wall”⁴ settle for a beta provider male and, deeply unhappy, push out a couple kids before initiating divorce. This is a better case scenario because these women at least procreate; many miss their opportunity waiting forever for Chad to settle down with them.

A Red Pill comic. Apologies for the crude language.

Without the ability for most men to find a date or a spouse, due to a combination of obesity, easily accessible porn and entertainment, and a general spirit of secular materialist consumerism, a huge percentage of the country’s young men have become bitter, insular incels who have dropped out of society. This is a disaster as the ability to pair bond for middle class white men provided a stabilizing influence that allowed civilization to flourish. The rise of Christianity strongly limited sexual opportunities and led to 1:1 pair bonding which were not based on cousin marriage, contributed to the rise of western civilization compared to Islam which was heavily focused on cousin marriages and kept average IQ low. The ubiquitous access to birth control, abortion, welfare for single mothers and a lack of religion which enforced societal norms and restricted female sexual rights and behavior has prevented normal men from forming families, leading to collapsed fertility rates.

---

Marriage in the modern era

Just like women only want to date the top few percentage of men, they are only willing to marry up via hypergamy as well. The difference is that for marriage women will factor job, wealth, and societal status more than simply height, alphaness and looks for casual dating and sex. For example, women want to marry men of equal or higher educational levels than they are, and they would rather be single forever than compromise on this. Marrying equal or down is disgusting to women, a kind of death. But boys are falling behind in school due to “the future is female” propaganda and discrimination against them in higher education, to the point that in 2015/2016 56% of college students were female and 44% were male. Because of this women, due to their requirements, have a much decreased pool of acceptable marriage candidates. On the other hand, men of high status don’t care about a woman’s status, only her youth, looks, and willingness to please. This is why Lee Kuan Yew launched a whole campaign around this topic in Singapore, because highly educated women were not able to marry or have children because highly educated men married downwards instead of getting paired with annoying hyper-educated entitled shrews. Lee basically begged high class men to suck it up and marry these annoying women because they were higher IQ and IQ is highly heritable (although IQ is strongly associated with having fewer children, a strong dysgenic effect).

Marriage rates are collapsing as a result of these globohomo-backed trends, which is going to dramatically transform society with a huge percent of the male population checked out mentally and a huge percent of aging women turning into insane, embittered cat ladies. This is how civilization collapses:

See this wonderful post by

Arctotherium

at Aporia Magazine who goes into detail about how high male status and low female status leads to high fertility rates, and low male status and high female status leads to collapsed fertility rates, which is a theme I also covered previously.

Marriage is dramatically slanted against men, and this is not a new phenomenon. It’s just that the degree of slant has gotten much worse for men in recent decades. Here’s Schopenhauer on how marriage is bad for men 150 years ago:

The laws of marriage prevailing in Europe consider the woman as the equivalent of the man—start, that is to say, from a wrong position. In our part of the world where monogamy is the rule, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. Now, when the laws gave women equal rights with man, they ought to have also endowed her with a masculine intellect. But the fact is, that just in proportion as the honors and privileges which the laws accord to women, exceed the amount which nature gives, is there a diminution in the number of women who really participate in these privileges; and all the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just so much as is given to the others over and above their share. For the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which it entails, bestow upon the woman an unnatural position of privilege, by considering her throughout as the full equivalent of the man, which is by no means the case; and seeing this, men who are shrewd and prudent very often scruple to make so great a sacrifice and to acquiesce in so unfair an arrangement.

Due to women adapting smartphones starting in 2012, as mentioned above, the feedback loop for shitliberalism has dramatically shortened; most women, fastened deeply into the Current Thing, regularly imbibe establishment propaganda and enforce it within the household. They go on Reddit and other liberal, female centered censored websites to reinforce their feedback loops when they are not playing mind-numbing banal, retarded iPhone games, that is. Whether the Current Thing is gay marriage hysteria, anti-Trump hysteria, COVID/fraudvirus, Ukraine/Russia, or Israel/Gaza, they blindly follow whatever the establishment propaganda of the moment is, completely impervious to arguments or debates, their eyes glazed over in a religious purification ritual to ward away the evils of non-governmental approved “disinformation”. Seeing how rapidly and awfully this phenomenon has taken control over the female birdbrain is a sight to behold, impervious to outside influence or control, and it can make exerting control over the household extremely difficult. This is a major part of why so many divorces occurred during so-called “COVID”.

This is a microcosm of the inability for dissidents to have connections to non-dissidents in the modern era, where the personal has become the political. Women are not dissidents because women are never at the vanguard of movements, and dissidence to globohomo is at a nascent stage. The best you’ll find is an apolitical woman (rare today due to the smartphone issue), a standard issue conservative woman (i.e. a liberal of a decade or two ago), or at very best a religious woman who treats her religion seriously. Even then there will likely be problems. And remember — women’s brains change on a biochemical level after children. What you think you buy into is not what you get; they become bossy, demanding, egocentric, hysterical and crying, the opposite of what they were pre-marriage. Women hate an idle man; sit down to relax, to watch sports or play video games, and watch how she grows to resent and hate you. You exist as an extension of her status and you must always be working to increase that status further. And it’s not like they even necessarily plan it as a “gotcha” (although both sexes put their best foot forward at the start of a relationship, hiding their flaws) — it simply results from those biochemical changes. Let this be a warning...

This goes back to the nature of women. The number of married couples I know who are legitimately happy is maybe two or three out of dozens. Of the ones that are “happy”, the man is a natural pushover by disposition and the woman calls the shots. You are not going to find your “Partner in Crime” or a “highly intelligent woman to share deep, meaningful conversations with.” It. Simply. Does. Not. Exist. There is nothing really to talk with women about other than child rearing, gossip or travel/vacation plans — otherwise the woman will talk incessantly about nothing (usually workplace drama if she works, or her friend’s personal problems otherwise) in a droning, repetitive voice, where you grunt occasional acknowledgment, then space out until she asks out of the blue, “Are you listening to me?” and you scramble with a world-salad response. They love to complain endlessly not for any intent at finding a solution, but just because they like to hear themselves talk and complain.

There is little commonality otherwise; commonality is held with male friends who can wrestle with deep ideas, metaphysics and philosophy. Women are simply not curious about the world; there are some exceptions, but even those exceptions are simply curious about their areas of interest, while a significant portion of men are curious about the world generally. This is why male-only clubs were so successful back in the day; a place to get away from nagging, shrieking, anti-fun women, where men could be chill and bullshit with each other in a calm, pleasant environment.⁵ Once women were let in the fun immediately died. And if called out on it, instead of any introspection or self-awareness, they will lash out at the evil white male patriarchy holding women down from experiencing the wonders that the men are so selfishly hiding for themselves! Go form your own clubs, women, please.

With respect to married women, especially with children, problems are created whether or not the woman is working. Generally it is better for a woman to work after having children⁶, because otherwise she gradually loses an understanding and appreciation for how difficult it is to make money, and they turn into “Brunch Shrews” once their children are in school where they go out with their friends to brunch, have mimosas or champaign at lunch, go shopping, then go home for more wine, stewing in gradually increasing emptiness and unhappiness until they fuck the pool boy. But if they are working, even part-time, and especially due to societal propaganda telling them men “need to do their share”, women increasingly want to split housework and childcare 50/50 with the man, then they either unconsciously resent the husband for being “beta” and changing diapers and doing housework, i.e. being a footstool they can order around⁷, or they resent the man for not chipping in enough even if he makes much more money. Lose-lose. There are regular viral videos of an overworked woman crying every month or so, or more often.

Fine wine, tall men, happy times - brunch!

Childcare and household chores do not come naturally to men, though, so a blending of responsibility instead of clear earmarked avenues of control (i.e. man making the money, woman in charge of the household, man consults woman but has final say over family decisions) leads to a lot of stress, arguments and unhappiness, just the way globohomo likes it. It is much better for there to be clear-cut, demarcated spheres of control for both the man and the woman. A man is unable to enforce rules within the household because (1) physical punishments are absolutely forbidden as a hard and fast rule in western society (and increasingly “emotional abuse” is treated in much the same manner, an amorphous standard that is infinitely debatable) and (2) divorce dramatically favors women.

---

Divorce in the modern era

I don’t want to write too much about divorce, as it’s well known that it dramatically favors women both for custody, child support and (sometimes lifelong) alimony. Women are afforded the decisions for education, vaccinations, and even gender transitioning; sometimes men snap after such one-sided, egregious results. More than half of marriages end in divorce and a great percentage of those who do not divorce are miserable.

Because women know that divorce will usually favor them, they feel emboldened within a marriage to torture their husband with endless verbal and other abuse; women initiate about 70% or more of all divorces, often while self-deluding themselves as victims. This is not entirely their fault; men are largely unworthy of respect due to lacking masculine role models, dealing with obesity and depression and lack of work opportunities, and especially due to these inverted gender norms. Why would women want to stay with an effeminate, sniveling so-called “man”? It is a sad situation that the very institution that gave rise to western civilization and healthy families has been inverted as an institution of destruction.

Also, per Judith Wallerstein’s famous study, children of divorce - no matter how good the divorce or how bad the marriage - universally have worse life outcomes compared to children whose parents stay together.

---

What’s there to be done?

The point of this post is very similar to the philosophical pessimism post: to set proper expectations. Marriage is set up in our society as a panacea, that as long as it is properly tendered by fulfilling each other’s needs you can create some kind of mini-oasis of happiness and stability. And maybe a few couples do have this — but it is a rare thing, and those who find it kind of luck into it, without rhythm or reason. This post, despite the clinical explanation of a slew of horrors, is not meant to discourage those from procreating — rather, so you can view male and female nature with a hopefully more sober mind to better prepare yourself for dating and marriage. And perhaps in this day and age it’s better to have such children without a marriage contract, which is used as a boat anchor to tie men into a lifetime of misery of alimony and child support without a strong legal position to be able to raise children in the way in which you would like.⁸ Or if you do decide to proceed with marriage, at least you’ll have a bit of an understanding that the female brain changes biochemically after having children and therefore their personalities and actions dramatically change, that they are birdbrain half-adults who are mostly incapable of deep conversations, that they seek out the establishment Hive Mind to download and promote the Current Thing, and that the law in every respect will be heavily biased against the man.

But still, better to procreate than to end up old and alone, “buried in Batman coffins, surrounded by our Xbox games.”

Thanks for reading.

1. Although there are signs that this trend is reverting back to its historic norms where the wealthy have more children than the poor.

2. Benjamin Franklin: “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

3. During its decline into decadence Rome used a birth control method using a plant called Silphium which led to the plant’s extinction.

4. Women develop a fear of the Wall — i.e. their impending dramatic decline in fertility, and eventually becoming invisible to men, which is a shocking and jarring event for formerly attractive women where life was so easy for them — around the age of 30. Before 30 and it is all about chasing Chad; when they hit 30 a switch flips and The Fear develops.

5. Women generally aren’t funny and don’t understand humor, which is born from deep pain. Instead they use the social status of comedians or the audience as a gauge for how much to find humor in the words of the comic. This is also why female attempts at humor are always crude, crass, and relate to their vaginas; they are generally incapable at societal analysis and relate everything to themselves.

6. But women in the workforce are mostly paper pushers (much more so than men), earning enough money to pay low IQ third world immigrants to watch their children in preschool for dozens of hours a week. This breaks the maternal bond and is generally terrible for children’s development. This whole system is sick.

7. Nietzsche is right that everything alive possesses a will to power, which is a will to increased status, so women in both dating and in marriage regularly “shit test” their man to ping their current status level, as they only want to be with a man whose status is higher than their own (to mooch off it and thereby increase their own status; this is why women only date upward while men date lower in status, as men only care about youth, beauty, and ease of companionship). One “beats” a shit-test by not getting emotionally disturbed by one and being okay with or without the woman, ultimately, and one “loses” a shit-test by getting emotionally angry and/or desperately clinging to one. Shit tests never end, although they decrease in regularity if the shit-test is overcome, and increases in regularity otherwise.

8. Or you could sexpat to a third world country to have children in, as by far the most intense gender form inversion propaganda has been pushed in the white west, leading to extreme expectations and extraordinarily difficult female attitudes, and third world women are generally cheerful, grateful, and fit the female form. But this isn’t a civilizational answer, and such race-mixing also further globohomo’s goals to turn the world into a mixed-race, low IQ interminable soup.