Posted On: Tuesday - March 14th 2017 6:32PM MST
In Topics:   Feminism
The first commenter on the Steve Sailer post mentioned in the last PeakStupidity post wrote:
Could be something to that. Similarly, the more modest female dress is said to lessen intrasexual competition. It also probably acts as a barrier to the temptation of adultery. Many societal benefits. We shouldn’t be so quick to turn up our noses.
As far as explaining the appeal to Western women in particular of a Muslim takeover, we cannot discard as a primary factor Western men’s abdicating their role as men. To name one example, their unwillingness to defend group territory and resources from invasion. That cannot be attractive to women.
I hear this point brought up a lot, that men here won't control their women, but here is the reply:
See this is where I’ve got to chime in again with a plug for us libertarians/constitutionalists again – I know I’m sounding like a
This part, from the commenter, "...we cannot discard as a primary factor Western men’s abdicating their role as men. To name one example, their unwillingness to defend group territory and resources from invasion." leaves out a lot of background.
Men have a very good reason to not get involved in a deal that could wipe out many years of their lives based on a court ruling. Portions of your life have indeed been taken from you when your money and other assets are stolen and “redistributed” – this money represents months or years of your labor, and unless you have a job that you just love most of the time, that means months/years of your life have been taken.
How did this scam of no-fault divorce, family court BS and all come into place? People did not make an effort to stop government growth (all of it, local, state, and Federal). Granted half of the voting public is women, so we put ourselves in a pickle by allowing this suffrage thing 100 years back.
I cannot blame young men with any means at all for not wanting to commit to a 50% or more chance of losing a big chunk of their lives, and also, even worse, having their children taken from them and raised wrong. The way men should have taken care of this is to have not let THE STATE become the beast that it is now. How can you fight this beast nowadays?
The high risk for shortening of one’s effective lifespan is only part of the only reason marriage is a bad deal for men. Within the marriage men have lost a lot of the control of things (getting to the commenter’s point now). All it takes now is for the woman to be not pleased with everything for her to threaten, or go through with separation or divorce, knowing the state will take up the slack via some type of redistribution scheme.
That could put the man in a bad spot, depending on whether a) there are his kids involved and/or b) if he has lots of assets and time invested. Due to the implied threat to his ability to raise his kids properly and to his accumulated labor the man will have no leverage and therefore, even before any big trouble, feels he can’t control his wife to any degree that is really necessary, especially with regard to her associations and any idiotic feminist politics and that sort of thing.
Yes, many women really don’t intend to act like they are a threat and there are many good ones who will never have any part in that type of behavior, but there is no way to know that for sure ahead of time.
To summarize, female suffrage and leftist/feminist ideas of men leads to lack of control of government growth, which leads to the welfare state, excessive regulation/control of what used to be family business, and a police-state restribution apparatus that one man cannot fight. This leads to a lack of control of family lives by men, which leads to women getting major control of society, which leads to eventual collapse.