"…if they are a genuine liberal, leftist, or feminist, they are antithetical to being wives because, consciously or not, they vote to replace men with the state. Like nuns to the church, they are first and foremost wedded to the state and not you. Therefore, any self-respecting man will simply refuse to marry, let alone, support somebody who actively votes against him, his success, and his liberty."
More can be found here.
19 comments:
Apparently, men do not have the liberty to decide for themselves the woman who will they will marry and procreate with. Ergo, they have to be "told" or "coerced" because they lack any common sense. Sounds like an advocation for limiting liberty to me. Moreover, if men do take this "advice" and hold out for only "virtuous" women, good luck repopulating he white race.
Women can either marry men or they can marry the State. When it comes to marrying, there is no other choice.
Speaking as the child of someone who sat on her ass and collected a government check, I don't understand why anyone would go for such an abusive relationship as that. The only worse abuser than the government is the d-bag that punches his wife in the head because she suggested that maybe the map in his hands was upside down.
This is precisely why I oppose women's suffrage.
Bob, women clearly don't "marry" the state. Try again.
This is a somewhat tangential remark, but anyway - in your book, Aaron, an excellent book by the way and if someone doesn't have a copy they should get one immediately - you make the statement, true in my experience, that women crave attention. After 20 years with my wife, and both of us no longer young, I realize that this is functional. If a man is not paying close attention to his woman, he will not notice if she gets into trouble - stuck in a snowdrift comes to mind today, or receiving unwanted attention. Only if he sees her in trouble can he bring his superior strength and pugnacity to her aid.
As someone who's spent a great deal amongst those of an artistic bent, I can say flat out that most of the women of my acquaintance would make bad wives. (Good friends and co-workers, but bad wives.)
If you see the woman you're interested in demonstrate any of these characteristics, you're strongly advised to reject them as marriage material:
*She says "I'm not maternal." - Yeah, you may not want kids either, but what that phrase implies is that her nurturing instincts have completely withered on the vine due to her own mother's neglect (or due to corruption via the educational system). A nurturing nature is essential to a wife and mother. If all you want out of a relationship is a roommate who occasionally provides you with sex, fine (and if you want to put your assets at risk by slipping a ring onto such a woman, that's fine too, but you've got to bear the consequences if things turn south.)
*She refuses to do housework or cook. This has gotten a lot of mention recently around here. Women who take pride in their ignorance of domesticity can be counted on to perform the kind of profligate, neglectful parenting that would make Peggy Bundy green with envy. If you don't want you or your future kids living in a filthhole downing deep fried bags of McGrease every night, you'd best avoid a woman who treats housework like it's a crime against the Geneva Convention.
*She dyes her hair non-natural colors. A few streaks of wash-out color might be fine, but full, multi-colored rainbow tresses are usually a sign that she's abandoned all thoughts of a traditional life. (Or any thought of getting a higher-than-barista-level job.) She might also be sexually experimental and/or crazy. (Like the poisonous tree frog, bright colors are often Nature's way of warning you, "Admire from afar, but don't get too close!")
*She has tattoos. See above entry about hair. A few tiny, girly tattoos might be okay, but a huge tattoo (especially if the subject matter pertains to some transient fad, hobby or flash in the pan celebrity) is a sign that she has very little in the way of long term future time orientation. (Think of tattoos as permanent bell-bottoms. Do you think it even occurred to your girl as she was getting Justin Bieber's mug tattooed onto her ass that she would be a completely different and evolved person in five, ten years time? Such a non-introspective and non-self-aware girl would probably not make a good wife.)
*She majors in "Art". Graphic Design and marketing might be permissible if she seems normal, but if she decides to pour $80,000 into a private Art Institute to major in "Illustration,", she not only doesn't know how reality works, she'll probably be crap with money as well. (You'll be on the hook for her student loans of course.)
*She rationalizes self-destructive behavior. "I've been doing this for years and I've never had a problem with it" is a phrase you never want to hear. So is "My doctors tells me to lose weight, but I FEEL healthy! It's totally bullshit that I can't get insurance because of my weight when there's nothing wrong with me!" Avoid women like this at all costs.
*She's crude and acts like a man. If you want a spouse that acts like a man, you're better off marrying a man. At least he'll make a decent wage and not complain when you leave the toilet seat up. He'll probably be a better cook than most women as well. (And since gay men are all about the "open marriage" thing, you two can seek sexual satisfaction with other people.)
*She blames her exes for all of her failed relationships. Again, the lack of introspection thing. It's possible that she could have kept running into Dr. Jekyll types who turned into Mr. Hyde despite all of her best efforts to vet those men, but how likely is it?
Dont worry, women will be replaced with robots too:
http://www.sciencegymnasium.com/2013/12/the-artificial-womb-is-born-and-world.html
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20121113
It could be that the only way for the human specie to survive is to eradicate the female gender and produce only males via the artificial womb.
Axlotl tanks for rent can't come soon enough.
(no pun intended.)
He is speaking figuratively, in case you hadn't realized. He means that the government (ie, taxpayers) have stepped in and provided the financial support traditionally provided by the husband. No where is this more evident than the black underclass which has been effectively destroyed by these policies. But it is rapidly making its way up: for example divorce rape.
Read Bob's excellent blog - although I know the Cap' has talked about it here too.
Jack, the article doesn't say men are not free to choose. Rather, women who subscribe to leftism/feminism/statist beliefs are either consciously or unconsciously electing to replace the traditional provider role of men with the enforcement role of government.
The liberty for men to choose is, in the words of War Games, "...not to play the game..."
Didn't the Iron Brotherhood predate axlotl tanks?
"Rather, women who subscribe to leftism/feminism/statist beliefs are either consciously or unconsciously electing to replace the traditional provider role of men with the enforcement role of government."
So women have NO liberty to make decisions which contradict "traditional" roles; men have the moral responsibility to ensure they make the "right" choices. Because women ruin everything!
Thanks for clarifying! (rolling of eyes)
"If you see the woman you're interested in demonstrate any of these characteristics, you're strongly advised to reject them as marriage material"
Right, because ultimately their "character" is flawed.
Thanks for clarifying! (rolling of eyes)
Your eye rolling hasn't in any way addressed our points, Jackie. No one is saying that women can't make their own decisions or choose to live non-traditional lifestyles. Each woman is free to do so and should be free to do so.
But a MAN has a right to discriminate and to set the criteria for the type of woman he wants to make into his wife. If he observes women engaging in certain behaviors and those behaviors make women prone to frivolous divorce and/or to viewing men as disposable servants who have a greater sense of obligation to her than she feels towards him, then he has the right to boot her to the end of the line and choose a woman who does not engage in those behaviors. Sure, there's a chance that a woman who telegraphs that she'd be an unsuitable wife will end up being a suitable wife. I'm sure it happens. And there's a chance that if I were to dive headfirst off a cliff into the ocean without any training or practice, that I could end up perfectly safe at the bottom, but would I want to risk it?
By all means, men should be free to wife up a woman who doesn't want to take care of him or bear his children or who has a wide and varied sexual history and a long history of making unsustainable decisions, but if things turn out badly, it's (to a large extent) his fault. Perhaps he didn't know any better and he believed everything the Blue Pill world told him, but his instincts should have at least squeaked out a little warning...
Hey Capt,
Quick question: given the link below, would you ever consider signing up for one of these to get as many women as you want?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/sperm-donor-has-fathered-87-kids-the-natural-way/
You could have a 3-strike policy that if they're not pregnant after three times you stop seeing them, knowing they'll NEVER get pregnant to you!
Do you know where your liberated lady is right now?
Are you sure?
Oh yes---the only trade in which women consistently make more than men is prostitution, which ought to tell you how much value women add to the workplace. About the only work women are still actually needed for is making babies. Everything else can be computerized (voicemail and Microsoft Office have made secretaries obsolete except as eye candy) or done by robots. No prizes for guessing who the designers of the robots will be.
Women have options. No man is telilng them what to do.
They can abide by the demands of conservative men and marry them.
They can marry the state and live up to no standards.\
Or
They can marry a liberal man.
Heh heh
"... They can marry a liberal man."
And for being a liberal and marrying in the misandric cesspool that is now Western "civilization", the liberal man fully deserves what he will get: abused, cuckolded, divorced, legally robbed, and reduced to an overworked slave by both his ex and the State which he supported -- and which now supports her.
He can also expect to be legally slandered without any evidence, and likely exposed to every STD in existence.
Only fools drink from poisoned wells.
Post a Comment