Quote: (12-10-2018 06:18 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

My wife follows everything in that list on the stay-at-home side. She would love to read this Christian lady's blog.

You still can make an average wage and have your wife stay at home to raise a bunch of kids now. My friend is doing this on an average blue collar salary, his wife homeschools their 4 children with a 5th on the way. He lives in a country town though. His wife also does some small home business to make some side money. They're extremely frugal.

I make decent money in the $100k range, my wife stays at home and will be homeschooling our children too. We live in an expensive area at the moment, but our frugality and minimalism keep our costs way down. My wife is also creating a couple of home businesses to make some extra cash.

If any of you have ever read The Millionaire Next Door, you'll remember them talking about two kinds of stay-at-home wives. The bad kind doesn't do much and spends money as hard as the husband earns it. The good kind plays defense superbly well with their finances (the husband plays offense), makes the family dollars go further, and is even more frugal than the husband. That is our model. We also follow Mr Money Mustache's lifestyle and financial freedom model as well.

My wife follows some entrepreneurial SAHMs on social media, they all have 3 or more children, keep the house in excellent condition and keep themselves in great shape for their husbands.

There's too much "it's too hard, can't do it" or "it's pointless, we're all doomed anyway" attitude in this thread and on this forum lately. Let's hear something more actionable and positive, shall we?

Here is the official website:
https://thetransformedwife.com/

Quote: (12-10-2018 02:46 AM)Meliorare93 Wrote:  

Oh yeah totally doable! And thinking about the hypergamous nature of women and the fact they are constantly brainwashed that staying at home to take care of the home and the children is such a satisfying life. It will work out perfectly fine!

Seriously...

It worked for at least some centuries, if not a couple of millenia..
Monogamous stay at home wife may be a social construct, but it's much more natural than corporate childless whoredom

I'm pretty sure that if the cultural Marxists can convince women to waste their wombs in a cubicle, people can convince them to be family oriented, just get the right hands on the propaganda tools

This forum has a hamster wheel of its own. Every other thread on here is about divorce rape, which is a legitimate concern. But if you want the wife to stay at home and take care of the kids while you work, then she's going to get half your shit, and you are consenting to it by going with this arrangement. When one spouse is the sole domestic caretaker, and the other works, the law treats their contributions as equal. So if you are making 200k and your wife is staying at home, whether she is taking care of 1 kid or 6 kids, you are quasi contracting that your contributions to the marriage are equal.

In reality, there is no way to have a family and compartmentalize the risk of getting divorce raped. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a pre-nup, game, laying the pipe right, you cannot 100% de-risk, unless you are willing to play the female role, marry someone that makes more money than you, and be the primary caretaker. Having that big family without getting married would be another good strategy. Common law marriage only exists in very few states, and it is way overblown as a factor on the forum.

Quote: (12-10-2018 08:34 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Cars + insurance
Health insurance
Mortgage (higher if you wanna live in a nicer area)
private school
Property taxes
Food costs

I think the above are becoming non-negotiable in the modern US. And why I would argue that women, unfortunately, have to also work in order to support a family.

Contrary to pretty much everything I have posted so far, there are a lot of reasons to keep your wife in the work force once all children are in grade school.

If you lose your job, your family will not lose health insurance, and household income doesn't drop to zero.

Saving an additional $20k/yr can make a real retirement possible.

Women who are stay at home Moms for only one or two children might end up with nothing to do all day, and get depressed/bored enough to have an affair or otherwise start acting crazy.

The ideal scenario would be something that is low stress and essentially part time, even if it is not highly compensated. This way she can prioritize her children over her job, she doesn't have the illusion that she has a "career", and the man is still the bread winner.

A lot of nonprofits have positions like this that are perfect for women with children. Low stress, not highly compensated, and there are zero Chads in the office who will try to plow your lady.

If you don't mind cold, New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine have really low costs of living and decent schools. Florida actually has areas, believe it or not, with good public schools, zero state income tax, and reasonable housing costs. I am sure other guys on here know of similar places.

Quote: (12-09-2018 11:46 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 02:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

If you bring this up to a woman she will usually respond with "you can't raise children on one income anymore". Kinda true, I guess.

The answer is that we did it the past and can do it again. If a lot of women decided to have kids and opt out of the workforce, you would see governments and other institutions adjust to that new reality with programs to support it. There is no way government leaders would ignore that new voting bloc.

Well, not only that, if the whole country decides that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, be it the man or the woman, you take away half of the labor force. So the remaining labor would be worth more, as there would be less supply of labor. Every person remaining in the labor force would get a raise.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:10 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 11:46 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 02:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

If you bring this up to a woman she will usually respond with "you can't raise children on one income anymore". Kinda true, I guess.

The answer is that we did it the past and can do it again. If a lot of women decided to have kids and opt out of the workforce, you would see governments and other institutions adjust to that new reality with programs to support it. There is no way government leaders would ignore that new voting bloc.

Well, not only that, if the whole country decides that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, be it the man or the woman, you take away half of the labor force. So the remaining labor would be worth more, as there would be less supply of labor. Every person remaining in the labor force would get a raise.

Or the jobs would go bye-bye to whiteys via H1Bs or just plain outsourcing.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:11 AM)moneyshot Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:10 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 11:46 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 02:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

If you bring this up to a woman she will usually respond with "you can't raise children on one income anymore". Kinda true, I guess.

The answer is that we did it the past and can do it again. If a lot of women decided to have kids and opt out of the workforce, you would see governments and other institutions adjust to that new reality with programs to support it. There is no way government leaders would ignore that new voting bloc.

Well, not only that, if the whole country decides that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, be it the man or the woman, you take away half of the labor force. So the remaining labor would be worth more, as there would be less supply of labor. Every person remaining in the labor force would get a raise.

Or the jobs would go bye-bye to whiteys via H1Bs or just plain outsourcing.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:10 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 11:46 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 02:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

If you bring this up to a woman she will usually respond with "you can't raise children on one income anymore". Kinda true, I guess.

The answer is that we did it the past and can do it again. If a lot of women decided to have kids and opt out of the workforce, you would see governments and other institutions adjust to that new reality with programs to support it. There is no way government leaders would ignore that new voting bloc.

Well, not only that, if the whole country decides that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, be it the man or the woman, you take away half of the labor force. So the remaining labor would be worth more, as there would be less supply of labor. Every person remaining in the labor force would get a raise.

In a sane world, tax structures would be wildly skewed to favor married couples with children, and a populist/nationalist government would demand that production of goods sold inside a country takes place inside a country.

This would:

-Instantly transfer wealth/power from pozzed oligarchs like Jeff Bezos to his employees
-Incentivize women to stop slutting it up, since marriage would reemerge as a social norm
-Make the American dream achievable for the middle class
-Fix declining population and other destructive demographic trends
-Massively benefit children, who would have high levels of parental attention and stability growing up

It seems Eastern Europe is the only part of the world that really "gets it", so it might be time to relocate there in a few years.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:02 AM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

This forum has a hamster wheel of its own. Every other thread on here is about divorce rape, which is a legitimate concern. But if you want the wife to stay at home and take care of the kids while you work, then she's going to get half your shit, and you are consenting to it by going with this arrangement. When one spouse is the sole domestic caretaker, and the other works, the law treats their contributions as equal. So if you are making 200k and your wife is staying at home, whether she is taking care of 1 kid or 6 kids, you are quasi contracting that your contributions to the marriage are equal.

In reality, there is no way to have a family and compartmentalize the risk of getting divorce raped. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a pre-nup, game, laying the pipe right, you cannot 100% de-risk, unless you are willing to play the female role, marry someone that makes more money than you, and be the primary caretaker. Having that big family without getting married would be another good strategy. Common law marriage only exists in very few states, and it is way overblown as a factor on the forum.

You should read more from Rollo Tomassi. Despite being happily married, he ALWAYS recommends against people getting married. He understands that he is the exception, not the rule.

^^(answer to moneyshot) This is Libertarian rethoric, I don't blame you for believing in it as I had a Libertarian phase of my own

Think about it, in the sixties and before there was a few amount of immigrants and women in the workforce and what happened?
Everyone had their jobs, no mass unemployment whatsoever,
Not only that, a burger flipper was able to sustain an entire family and get a decent house and a decent car
Younger people also had a safe entry in the job market, instead of becoming debt slaves to higher education institutions while fighting tooth and nail for dead end jobs

If the labor force getting expensive would result in unemployment and immigrants en masse coming to get jobs, why is the labor force getting cheaper than ever and the pressure for immigration and H1B bullshittery only increases?

Some peculiar logic going on here..

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:28 AM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:02 AM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

This forum has a hamster wheel of its own. Every other thread on here is about divorce rape, which is a legitimate concern. But if you want the wife to stay at home and take care of the kids while you work, then she's going to get half your shit, and you are consenting to it by going with this arrangement. When one spouse is the sole domestic caretaker, and the other works, the law treats their contributions as equal. So if you are making 200k and your wife is staying at home, whether she is taking care of 1 kid or 6 kids, you are quasi contracting that your contributions to the marriage are equal.

In reality, there is no way to have a family and compartmentalize the risk of getting divorce raped. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a pre-nup, game, laying the pipe right, you cannot 100% de-risk, unless you are willing to play the female role, marry someone that makes more money than you, and be the primary caretaker. Having that big family without getting married would be another good strategy. Common law marriage only exists in very few states, and it is way overblown as a factor on the forum.

You should read more from Rollo Tomassi. Despite being happily married, he ALWAYS recommends against people getting married. He understands that he is the exception, not the rule.

I agree, the risk reward is not favorable. I see it more as a basic issue of economics and how people respond to incentives rather than a cultural male/female issue. Being the divorce raper is a shitty thing to do but most people would behave the same way all things being equal.

Quote: (12-10-2018 12:31 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:28 AM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:02 AM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

This forum has a hamster wheel of its own. Every other thread on here is about divorce rape, which is a legitimate concern. But if you want the wife to stay at home and take care of the kids while you work, then she's going to get half your shit, and you are consenting to it by going with this arrangement. When one spouse is the sole domestic caretaker, and the other works, the law treats their contributions as equal. So if you are making 200k and your wife is staying at home, whether she is taking care of 1 kid or 6 kids, you are quasi contracting that your contributions to the marriage are equal.

In reality, there is no way to have a family and compartmentalize the risk of getting divorce raped. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a pre-nup, game, laying the pipe right, you cannot 100% de-risk, unless you are willing to play the female role, marry someone that makes more money than you, and be the primary caretaker. Having that big family without getting married would be another good strategy. Common law marriage only exists in very few states, and it is way overblown as a factor on the forum.

You should read more from Rollo Tomassi. Despite being happily married, he ALWAYS recommends against people getting married. He understands that he is the exception, not the rule.

I agree, the risk reward is not favorable. I see it more as a basic issue of economics and how people respond to incentives rather than a cultural male/female issue. Being the divorce raper is a shitty thing to do but most people would behave the same way all things being equal.

You clearly got it wrong. Men respond to economics. Women do not. They respond to hubris. Let us put in prospective. Which man has the highest social value. This will assume each man makes $80k a year.

1) A salesman.
2) An electrical engineer.
3) A union garbage truck driver.

If a woman was to marry one of three which do you think would give her the greatest social status? I think most people will agree in the order I listed. There is a reason why women will fuck the starving artist or the local musician making $50 a gig a night. A women will never love you for who you are but what you are. Once she can branch swing to another man, you are done.

The whole point of morality is to suppress human nature's wickedness. Men these days are told bow down like cowards while nothing has been done to keep a women's sinful nature in check. There is a reason why teach men here to be Alpha fux instead of beta bux.

Quote: (12-10-2018 08:34 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Cars + insurance
Health insurance
Mortgage (higher if you wanna live in a nicer area)
private school
Property taxes
Food costs

I think the above are becoming non-negotiable in the modern US. And why I would argue that women, unfortunately, have to also work in order to support a family.

Are they all really non-negotiable? Or are they lifestyle choices that people have locked themselves into?

You can definitely get away with not having a car. You should read Mr Money Mustache's blog, he explains it much better than I can.

Health insurance - admittedly I don't know the US system, but you can probably find affordable options if you're healthy and don't really need extensive care. Here we just have our tax-funded medicare, which costs us nothing extra after gov takes it from my tax.

Mortgage - this is the highest costing item, but can be managed to something decent if you are smart about which house to buy. Minimalist mindset is critical here, so you don't buy one you can't really afford.

Private school - definitely not needed, a SAHM can homeschool the children.

Property taxes - similar to mortgage

Food costs - grocery shopping at farmers markets, SAHM cooking for the family. This part is what I envy Americans, yours can be even so much cheaper than ours.

There are lots of families that have done this successfully with the wife staying at home. They're all frugal minimalists though.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:28 AM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

You should read more from Rollo Tomassi. Despite being happily married, he ALWAYS recommends against people getting married. He understands that he is the exception, not the rule.

Why would anyone consider Rollo Tomassi as the authority on marriage? He married a woman at the same age when they were both 28 (so she's old, and definitely not a virgin), he only has one daughter and no son to carry his family name forward. In a traditional patriarchy, he'd be laughed at.

I agree that everyone should do their risk/reward check when it comes to marriage these days, but find better, more successful men to listen to than Rollo.

Quote: (12-10-2018 05:44 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Why would anyone consider Rollo Tomassi as the authority on marriage? He married a woman at the same age when they were both 28 (so she's old, and definitely not a virgin), he only has one daughter and no son to carry his family name forward. In a traditional patriarchy, he'd be laughed at.

I agree that everyone should do their risk/reward check when it comes to marriage these days, but find better, more successful men to listen to than Rollo.

I have never heard those arguments before, apart from being a virgin obviously. But I don't get why I should judge him like that when we don't know all the exact circumstances of his marriage?

What if this woman as a 28-year-old always kept herself and her body in better shape than some other guy's wife at 20? Would the guy who married the uglier and more out of shape 20-year-old have more valid opinions?
There is a small chance a 28-year-old can be a virgin too, we don't know definitely.

And what if he had wanted one child only and this child just by chance happened to turn out to be a girl? Should he consider having more kids just to impress others with a family name even if it's, say, "Smith"?

What he says usually aligns with what I have perceived to be true in my own life and so far he's still together and has had a successful marriage with his wife. Those are the facts, the other stuff is just speculation.

I don't know why it should matter much. I've listened to many different men who have had all kinds of marriages, successful and unsuccessful and just try to think about what sounds reasonable to me.

Quote: (12-10-2018 07:16 PM)Helpful Science Guy Wrote:  

I have never heard those arguments before, apart from being a virgin obviously.

The fact that you have not heard those arguments before shows just how far the average Western men have fallen from their traditional roots.

Marrying a young virgin wife and having many children including sons to carry your name forward is the successful norm for every man in every civilisation that has ever existed on this planet, including Western ones. It is not even remotely controversial or new. I did not create these arguments, I'm simply repeating the wisdom that has served our civilisations for a very long time.

Now, marriage is a personal choice, if you think it's not worth it because of your own reasoning, that's perfectly fine. However I suggest not learning from unsuccessful people when you make one of the most important decisions in your life.

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:27 AM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:10 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 11:46 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Quote: (12-09-2018 02:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

If you bring this up to a woman she will usually respond with "you can't raise children on one income anymore". Kinda true, I guess.

The answer is that we did it the past and can do it again. If a lot of women decided to have kids and opt out of the workforce, you would see governments and other institutions adjust to that new reality with programs to support it. There is no way government leaders would ignore that new voting bloc.

Well, not only that, if the whole country decides that one parent stays home to take care of the kids, be it the man or the woman, you take away half of the labor force. So the remaining labor would be worth more, as there would be less supply of labor. Every person remaining in the labor force would get a raise.

In a sane world, tax structures would be wildly skewed to favor married couples with children, and a populist/nationalist government would demand that production of goods sold inside a country takes place inside a country.

This would:

-Instantly transfer wealth/power from pozzed oligarchs like Jeff Bezos to his employees
-Incentivize women to stop slutting it up, since marriage would reemerge as a social norm
-Make the American dream achievable for the middle class
-Fix declining population and other destructive demographic trends
-Massively benefit children, who would have high levels of parental attention and stability growing up

It seems Eastern Europe is the only part of the world that really "gets it", so it might be time to relocate there in a few years.

There will also have to be the abolition or radical reform of the Family Court System to correct all the injustices of it of not only no-fault divorce but domestic violence model:

Current Law looks like this:





This Law is put together by feminists to punish male behavior in marriage regardless of actual behavior:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/07/21...to-duluth/

Therefore all domestic violence is the man's fault even if the woman batters the man. That's why men are arrested when the woman calls the cops even on a false DV claim.

Quote: (12-10-2018 05:44 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 10:28 AM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

You should read more from Rollo Tomassi. Despite being happily married, he ALWAYS recommends against people getting married. He understands that he is the exception, not the rule.

Why would anyone consider Rollo Tomassi as the authority on marriage? He married a woman at the same age when they were both 28 (so she's old, and definitely not a virgin), he only has one daughter and no son to carry his family name forward. In a traditional patriarchy, he'd be laughed at.

I agree that everyone should do their risk/reward check when it comes to marriage these days, but find better, more successful men to listen to than Rollo.

StrikeBack getting in a pissy mood on an internet forum.

No one claimed he was an authority on marriage. He also doesn't claim he his trying to have a traditional patriarchal family.

As for men to listen to, Rollo is one of three founders of the red pill(Among him, Roosh and Roissy). A lot of the knowledge we have is because of his works. That is a good weight of influence to have.

Compared to him, what have you brought to the table?

He's brought some common sense, at least in the above response, common sense which seems to have eluded that Rollo dude.

The forum duality of sorting every man into Alpha Fux or Beta Bux is extremely flawed and frankly not fit for purpose in these discussions. Alpha males by definition are leading a pack. "Alpha fux" are just beta+ wolves taking advantage of poorly guarded females.

Society needs beta males more than it needs beta+ cocks, but what it really lacks is actual proper alpha males.

Quote: (12-10-2018 08:02 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 07:16 PM)Helpful Science Guy Wrote:  

I have never heard those arguments before, apart from being a virgin obviously.

The fact that you have not heard those arguments before shows just how far the average Western men have fallen from their traditional roots.

Marrying a young virgin wife and having many children including sons to carry your name forward is the successful norm for every man in every civilisation that has ever existed on this planet, including Western ones. It is not even remotely controversial or new. I did not create these arguments, I'm simply repeating the wisdom that has served our civilisations for a very long time.

Now, marriage is a personal choice, if you think it's not worth it because of your own reasoning, that's perfectly fine. However I suggest not learning from unsuccessful people when you make one of the most important decisions in your life.

This. Ancient wisdom has been lost.

A woman’s bonding mechanism is progressively destroyed with more sexual partners, so virginity is ideal. It creates a unique pair-bond. Unfortunately women give it away easily in the west, so it’s unrealistic for most. But anything more than 4 sexual partners (so 3 max. when you meet) and there’s a huge increase in the risk of divorce.

I’m also surprised by the claim that two incomes are necessary. Men should be as independent and self-sufficient as possible. It’s a very feminine, neurotic thing to need lots of material things to be happy. It’s generally women who are wasteful and have the desire to constantly spend money. So as a general rule, the stronger your masculine frame in the relationship, the less you will spend. Historically, even the richest of families in the west flourished on much less than most people have today. And they were probably happier. I think of my grandparents' generation always fixing things and being horrified by any food waste. A great deal of the satisfaction they got out of life was from cherishing what they had and making it go as far as possible.

I disagree on marriage though. You should not be getting legally married in the west.

Quote: (12-12-2018 02:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The forum duality of sorting every man into Alpha Fux or Beta Bux is extremely flawed and frankly not fit for purpose in these discussions. Alpha males by definition are leading a pack. "Alpha fux" are just beta+ wolves taking advantage of poorly guarded females.

Society needs beta males more than it needs beta+ cocks, but what it really lacks is actual proper alpha males.

Its the fault of the current chemical environment we are swimming in(Bispheno A and other estrogenizing chemicals possibly from birth control pills and other plastic chemicals) and social environment that auto-demotes the average man in status and masculinity and thereby renders his behaviors and attitudes unattractive.

Quote: (12-12-2018 06:55 AM)Oak Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 08:02 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Quote: (12-10-2018 07:16 PM)Helpful Science Guy Wrote:  

I have never heard those arguments before, apart from being a virgin obviously.

The fact that you have not heard those arguments before shows just how far the average Western men have fallen from their traditional roots.

Marrying a young virgin wife and having many children including sons to carry your name forward is the successful norm for every man in every civilisation that has ever existed on this planet, including Western ones. It is not even remotely controversial or new. I did not create these arguments, I'm simply repeating the wisdom that has served our civilisations for a very long time.

Now, marriage is a personal choice, if you think it's not worth it because of your own reasoning, that's perfectly fine. However I suggest not learning from unsuccessful people when you make one of the most important decisions in your life.

This. Ancient wisdom has been lost.

A woman’s bonding mechanism is progressively destroyed with more sexual partners, so virginity is ideal. It creates a unique pair-bond. Unfortunately women give it away easily in the west, so it’s unrealistic for most. But anything more than 4 sexual partners (so 3 max. when you meet) and there’s a huge increase in the risk of divorce.

I’m also surprised by the claim that two incomes are necessary. Men should be as independent and self-sufficient as possible. It’s a very feminine, neurotic thing to need lots of material things to be happy. It’s generally women who are wasteful and have the desire to constantly spend money. So as a general rule, the stronger your masculine frame in the relationship, the less you will spend. Historically, even the richest of families in the west flourished on much less than most people have today. And they were probably happier. I think of my grandparents' generation always fixing things and being horrified by any food waste. A great deal of the satisfaction they got out of life was from cherishing what they had and making it go as far as possible.

I disagree on marriage though. You should not be getting legally married in the west.

There is a very good correlation between Good Fathers and female virginity before wedlock.

Likewise a Good Father would be very pleased to give away his daughter once he has properly evaluated that the Husband she is marrying would be a good man who will take care of her.

Likewise that she should with her Father's help on the outset in their teens is serious about wedlock and finding such a good man.

There should be no fooling around.

What's this nonsense about marriage and virgins? RVF done lost its damn mind...

Quote: (12-12-2018 02:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The forum duality of sorting every man into Alpha Fux or Beta Bux is extremely flawed and frankly not fit for purpose in these discussions. Alpha males by definition are leading a pack. "Alpha fux" are just beta+ wolves taking advantage of poorly guarded females.

Society needs beta males more than it needs beta+ cocks, but what it really lacks is actual proper alpha males.

Fully agreed.

Femininity is powerful and necessary, but it is inherently primitive- the most feminine behaviors and urges come from the subconscious, and therefore have zero natural restraints. Femininity requires containment. Every successful society has mechanisms to restrain women, and metaphorical stories about the dangers of liberating women, my favorite being Pandora's Box, are abundant.

Masculinity is different. It is multidimensional; primitive, yet also aspirational, curious, and potentially transcendant. This is why God is masculine, and leadership is an innately masculine activity.

A real alpha male is a man capable of leading groups of people for their mutual benefit. In pre-history, he would lead a tribe. Today, he leads nations, companies, sports teams, etc. His immense value comes because he individually helps many people simultaneously, therefore the group rewards him with high social status and material benefits.

Women like alpha males because they are powerful, charismatic, and wealthy. Alphas are usually physically dominant, too. But the ACTUAL value of the alpha male, authoritatively helping people organize their social structures in a way that is mutually beneficial, is actually a turn off. An alpha male is fundamentally a pro-social creature, and many women get turned on more by men with antisocial tendencies, like violent criminals.

Creation of a transcendant (wholesome, functional, productive) social order is the most "alpha" activity. But so-called "beta" males are the pillars on which it rests. Scientists, farmers, engineers, craftsmen, make the society work. In fact, "beta" males tinkering with new techniques and innovations are what create real social progress. Contributing to a merit based hierarchy, and abiding by one's place within it, is an inherently masculine activity, and without it any healthy society implodes (as we are seeing now). For this reason, I reject entirely calling men "beta" in a pejorative way. If they are being cowards, pussies, etc, then call them that. But a man who knows his place and contributes good things to a society is no coward.

This is why Western society is now totally degenerate and ridiculous. Productive, law abiding men should NEVER have to submit themselves for female approval. Women revolt against society and good men like animals testing the strength of their reins. As a "player" I have enjoyed the degeneracy, but society clearly needs to reform itself, or face collapse in the near future.