RP-AUSTRALIA
01-25-2012, 01:55 AM
He makes some good points but makes the mistake of assuming that attraction is a choice for women when in reality it occurs at an unconcious level. Feminism has effectively freed women to have a lot of sexual partners/relationship (as opposed to 1 back in the day). It has benefited the good looking, rich and dominant guys the most because they are what triggers the unconcious attraction switch in the woman's brain. Women aren't attracted to the needy/pushover/boring personality presented by regular guys (which they would be kinda forced to marry back in the day), particularly when they are exposed to the more dominant and exciting Alpha types. This has resulted in a situation where average and even below average looks/class/personality women can sleep with above average and even high quality men. Ironically, these high quality men only generally sleep with these average and lower quailty women in a one night stand scenario or only for a short period of time before losing interest so these women lose out also.
He is spot on with his comments about the welfare state lead to a lot of single women having children. Feminsim has also made this worse by corrupting family law such that women get things such as life time alimony and an unfair level of child support from a father leading to the father living in poverty upon divorce. Because of this a lot of young men are seeing marriage and children as a really bad deal and they are instead choosing to remain single and childless.
The end result of all of this is a lot of frustrated guys who don't want or can't get a girlfriend/wife. These guys just sortof give up on life. They don't see any point to working hard to get a good career and lots of money to raise a family. The scary part is that this is all leading to an aging demographic trend in many western countries, and it has now reached a situation in places like the usa where social security is going to go broke beause there aren't enough young people to fund the retirement of the boomers.
Dsylexic
01-25-2012, 02:18 AM
yes the welfare state did to the black family what 200 years of slavery could not..it decimated the role of the father.72% black kids are today born out of wedlock and reared by single women
moostraks
01-25-2012, 07:59 AM
Meh...He is rambling and doesn't really bring much to the table. I think his theory excludes those children that are born to two parent families with strong religious beliefs that usually involve the war mentality.(Thinking along the bomb all brown countries lines...) They push a hyper intense view of gender roles. They then grow up to be over aggressive males. The men then hide behind the rules of the church to allow those who are abusive to continue to procreate. (and many of them also have a mistress or use prostitutes all while crying and begging for forgiveness of Sunday)
The welfare state has done its fair share of damage on the family. But RP-AUSTRALIA, I don't know where you live but I call bs. First off the non-custodial parent (notice it is not gender specific) does not get screwed. The amount of money they are court ordered to pay is usually significantly less than it costs the custodial parent to raise the child/ren.(Usually in the 15% range and there is a maximum cap(20% range iirc) for those with numerous children so the non-custodial parent keeps 85% for themselves-try doing that as a custodial parent) Also courts are much less gender biased than they used to be so a man with a good attorney will get his day in court if he chooses to seek custody. As far as alimony, it is extremely difficult esp. the lower income you are and is not a given. THe repercussions for failure to pay child support had started to tighten up but they are trending the opposite direction again so while a custodial parent would face jailtime for not providing for all the child/rens needs the non-custodial parent can usually keep themselves out of hot water by paying $5 a month in order to be showing intent to provide (Yes I know this for a fact In Georgia)
Women are choosing men just like men are choosing women because of how society is being steered. It is the propaganda in schools, the trash on the television, and the increasingly moral-less society. Good people are not seen as sexy and desirable. Children are seen as disposable and a ball and chain to one's career. Men aren't sticking around through pregnancy when the woman is hormonal and bloated and no longer sexy, but moving on to the next conquest. The women can't wait until pregnancy is over so they can dump their children in daycare and be back to their sexy selves to hook the next man. (This is perpetuated by welfare programs that support these choices financially) The children don't have consistent standards of behavior expected because caregivers are raising numerous same age children with no investment in the outcome except for a low wage pay check at the end of the week. So the children become little satans raised in herds who are bought off with video games and cable television which reinforces the oversexed, violent pursuit of ones desires. So this then becomes a vicious cycle that is growing as more people demand social programs to provide the safety net which gives the security blanket for people to live hazardous lifestyles. Wash rinse repeat...
And back to RP AUSTRALIA
This has resulted in a situation where average and even below average looks/class/personality women can sleep with above average and even high quality men. Ironically, these high quality men only generally sleep with these average and lower quailty women in a one night stand scenario or only for a short period of time before losing interest so these women lose out also. Where do Cain and Gingrich figure into this? This whole high quality men crap is repugnant. What makes them a high quality man if they are spreading themselves without any moral reservations? Seems like you missed the boat on the whole issue of what makes a man a real man...
And I haven't even spoken about the metrosexuals raised by usually affluent single mothers who may be hetrosexual but just marginally.
RP-AUSTRALIA
01-25-2012, 09:28 PM
But RP-AUSTRALIA, I don't know where you live but I call bs. First off the non-custodial parent (notice it is not gender specific) does not get screwed. The amount of money they are court ordered to pay is usually significantly less than it costs the custodial parent to raise the child/ren.(Usually in the 15% range and there is a maximum cap(20% range iirc) for those with numerous children so the non-custodial parent keeps 85% for themselves-try doing that as a custodial parent)
The amount a court is ordered to pay will vary significant between different countries, between different states and even between different judges. In a lot of places (including in the USA) there is no 20% maximum cap and the judge has a wide discretion to determine the amount of support required. The court's in places like the USA have been corrupted to a significant extent by the extreme feminist movement, and also by the desire of the government to limit its financial liabilities, resulting from divorce, by placing the onus on the husband rather than the state to pay the costs. This has an impact on the way the courts operate and hence the decisions that judges in these courts make.
Here is a peice from a blog that I sometimes read. I do not entirely share the views of the author of the blog but he makes some solid points based on research:
"The divorce system tends to award wives custody of the children, substantial child support, the marital home, half the couple’s assets, and, often, heavy alimony payments.
This may come as startling news to a public that has been led to believe that women are the ones who suffer financially postdivorce, not men. But the data show otherwise, according to an exhaustive study of the subject by Sanford L. Braver, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University and author of Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.
[...] social scientists ignored men’s expenses — the tab for replacing everything from the bed to the TV to the house — as well as the routine costs of helping to raise the children, beyond child support. Even the tax code favors women: Not only is child support not tax deductible for fathers, but a custodial mother can take a $1,000 per child tax credit; the father cannot, even if he’s paying. As “head of the household,” the mother gets a lower tax rate and can claim the children as exemptions. If the ex-wife remarries, she is still entitled to child support, even if she marries a billionaire. Indeed, every year men are actually thrown in jail for failing to meet their child-support obligations. In the state of Michigan alone, nearly 3,000 men were locked up for that offense in 2005."
Two good examples are provided in the article of when the courts get it wrong:
Here’s an example of just how bad it can get for a beta provider who thought if he was the good man the gods of fairness would reward him with steady sex, a faithful and loving wife, and a stable family:
They’d started going on expensive vacations in Europe and Hawaii, and he figured she’d be pleased at the prospect of taking more trips together, or at least at the prospect of seeing him around the house a little more, and not buried in his basement office. He had met her in graduate school over a quarter century ago, and they’d had their ups and downs, but he was still crazy about her. And he thought that, with a little more time together, she’d be crazy about him again too.
But no. She scarcely listened to any talk of retirement, or of vacations, or of anything he had to say. She had plans of her own.
“I want a divorce,” she said.
Paul was so stunned that he thought he must have misheard her. But her face told him otherwise. “She looked like the enemy,” he says. He started to think about everything he’d built: the thriving business, the wonderful family, the nice life in the suburbs. And he thought of her, and how much he still loved her. And then, right in front of her, he started to cry.
That night, he found a bottle of whiskey, and he didn’t stop drinking it until he nearly passed out.
Things turned sh—- very fast. His wife took out a temporary restraining order, accusing him of attempting to kidnap their youngest son. The claim was never proved in court. Then, with the aid of some high-priced lawyers, she extracted from him a whopping $50,000 a month — a full 75 percent of his monthly income. Barred from the house, he was not allowed regular access to the office he used to generate that income. (On the few times he was permitted inside, his wife did not let him use the bathroom. She insisted that he go outside in the woods.)
Paul is a very wealthy man, an ”alpha” by most men’s definitions (though not by my definition) – he earns over $65,000 per month — yet his high financial status ultimately did not shield him from his wife’s dr. jekyll mrs. hyde act. In fact, it may have hastened her merciless decision. Paul is a classic beta provider, and after his wife had extracted the last penny of tribute from him to raise the kids to a self-sufficient age and live the life of a bon bon eating oprah watcher, she disposed of him with the cold-hearted cruelty of a despot dispatching his enemies by firing squad. His wife is likely a Hillary supporter.
This brings me to two point I didn't raise in my intial post about no fault divorce laws and domestic violence laws. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that no fault divorces laws are appropriate and domestic violence laws are also needed, but they can become too exterme and open to abuse. As an example, a woman can marry a rich or even a moderately well off guy, move into a house he previously brought and then file for divorce for no reason and falsely claim domestic violence (either towards herself or any children). The guy is then removed for the house he brought and often barred from seeing his children. Moreover, the woman has a big financial incentive to do this as soon as the marriage hits any problems... This might not be a regular occurence but it happens enough to create a perception amongst the community about how marriage is a bad deal for men. Remember, the preception is enough to stop a significant portion of guys from getting married.
Here is the other example from the article:
If that isn’t enough to convince you of the high risk gamble that is marriage, here’s another horror story:
Long before his wife came along, a frame-store owner named Jordan Appel, 55, had built a fine house for himself atop West Newton Hill in one of the fancier Boston suburbs. He loved bringing in a wife and then adding two children. “It felt so wonderful to say ‘my wife’ and ‘my children’ and feel part of a community.” He volunteered for the preschool’s yard sale; his wife took up with a lover. Sometimes she slept with him in Appel’s own house; in time, she decided to divorce Appel. As these things go, he was obliged to leave the house, and, as it happened, the community too. Money was so tight that he ended up sleeping in a storage room above his frame shop two towns away. His ex-wife works part-time on the strength of Appel’s child custody and alimony payments, and spends time with her boyfriend in Appel’s former house. She lives rather well, and he has to make $100,000 a year to support her and the children, which amounts to 70-hour workweeks. One day, he went back to his house and discovered many of his belongings out on the sidewalk with the trash. “My body feels like it’s dissolving in anger,” he says. “I’m in an absolute rage every single day.”
Now of course, many of you will say “but this guy Jordan is a total beta letting his wife take advantage of him like that!” and you’d be right. But regardless of his personal failings, his congenital betatude is no reason to accede to injustice codified by a discriminatory legal system. Either the laws change (and I personally favor elimination of no fault divorce as a start) or men should heed my advice and stay clear of the altar. Since I am not going to lift a finger to agitate for new laws that have a zero percent chance of happening in my lifetime, I follow the second option.
Maxim #8: Marriage is a social mechanism designed to exchange sex for indentured servitude.
So why are women now the eager instigators of divorce? What changed in the culture? Four things, primarily: the pill, easy divorce, women’s economic independence, and rigged laws that make divorce a good financial prospect for women. The four sirens of the sexual apocalypse together have created the perfect sociological storm where a woman has every incentive in the world to ditch a husband to follow the whims of her heart once his usefulness has been exhausted.
and the article concludes with:
“A father could be sitting in his own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to his marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing he knows, the court has taken his house, his children, and a lot of his money, and then forced him to pay his wife’s legal fees and even her psychologist’s fees. And he can be threatened with jail time if he resists.”
Again, this stuff doesn't happen with every divorce but it happens enough throught communities across countries like America to create the perception of a bad deal. Here is a link to the full article if you are interested in reading about it: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dont-get-married/
High profile celebrity divorces are also promoting this perception. Here is an article about Kobe's recent divorce: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/kobe-bryant-loses-three-mansions-75-million-divorce-184818486.html
From the article, Kobe had to pay $75 million + 3 mansions at Newport beach in the divorce. Now I'm not say Kobe was a saint, but Vanessa did not earn that money and she certainly did not deserve that much money in the divorce. These sort of ridiculous decisions make people think the courts are very biased and a bad deal for men. These decisions also leave an impression on large segments of society as they are plastered all over the news and in magazines...They also encourage women who have married rich guys to get a divorce.
Also courts are much less gender biased than they used to be so a man with a good attorney will get his day in court if he chooses to seek custody.
The courts decide custody by looking at the best interests of the child. This has resulted in the courts making the woman the custodial parent in over 80% (and as high as 90%) of cases http://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time. Also refer to my previous comments about the courts being biased.
As far as alimony, it is extremely difficult esp. the lower income you are and is not a given.
I can understand where alimony might be needed in a few very limited cases but it is less and less appropriate with most women choosing to work these days. Australian laws and courts have acknowled this fact, but it is still a prevalent problem in the USA. Some states like Califonia have lifetime alimony laws after 10 years of marriage which, in my opinion, is complete bs. It infact encourages divorce and a non-work (non-productive) lifestyle for the stay at home or lower paid spouse (predominatenly the woman in most divorce cases). Even if alimony is not applied onerously in a state, the perception of unfair alimony is still present amoungst a significant proportion of young men in the USA and it acts as a deterent towards marriage. TV shows like Two and a Half men also tend to promote this perception.
THe repercussions for failure to pay child support had started to tighten up but they are trending the opposite direction again so while a custodial parent would face jailtime for not providing for all the child/rens needs the non-custodial parent can usually keep themselves out of hot water by paying $5 a month in order to be showing intent to provide (Yes I know this for a fact In Georgia)
Again quoting from the prevoius article.
"Indeed, every year men are actually thrown in jail for failing to meet their child-support obligations. In the state of Michigan alone, nearly 3,000 men were locked up for that offense in 2005."
Judges are increasingly cracking down on people who fail to pay child support. If you search the net, you will find extreme cases these days where men have lost their jobs in the USA during the GFC and have still been jailed by the courts because the cannot pay child support (a complete travesty of justice). That $5 per month thing is BS in most cases as well as judges can specify that child support comes out of a mans pay check before he even receives it.
Women are choosing men just like men are choosing women because of how society is being steered. It is the propaganda in schools, the trash on the television, and the increasingly moral-less society.
As I stated earlier attraction is not a consious choice. It occurs at an unconcious level. However, it is true that schools, magazines, moves, tv etc influence what is considered to be high status/high value (and hence attractive) by men and women.
Good people are not seen as sexy and desirable.
That depends on how you define 'good people'. I'm assuming your definition includes men who are hard working, modest, faithful etc. For this definition it is true for a growing protion (but not all) men. It really comes down to their personality. It's not the case for men who are considered to be a leader and more dominant. However, it is the case for men who are pushovers and supplicators. These type of men, whilst hard working and faithful, let women to control them easily. Women find these type of men friendly but sexually repulsive.
Children are seen as disposable and a ball and chain to one's career.
Thats a very broad generalisation that applies to some people (both men and women) but not others.
Men aren't sticking around through pregnancy when the woman is hormonal and bloated and no longer sexy, but moving on to the next conquest.
Again a very broad generalisation. It applies in a minority of cases (but depends on factors such as race and income). You need to remember that the vast majority of men cannot easily get another girlfriend easily so they have a scarcity mindset when it comes to women. A large portion also know that it is morally worng to dump a pregnant wife. These groups of men are therefore inclined to stick around.
The women can't wait until pregnancy is over so they can dump their children in daycare and be back to their sexy selves to hook the next man. (This is perpetuated by welfare programs that support these choices financially) The children don't have consistent standards of behavior expected because caregivers are raising numerous same age children with no investment in the outcome except for a low wage pay check at the end of the week.
Again this is a broad generalisation which only applies to a small (but growing) percentage of the population. It's not only to "hook the next man" though. A lot of women are choosing to go back to work soon after child birth.
So the children become little satans raised in herds who are bought off with video games and cable television which reinforces the oversexed, violent pursuit of ones desires. So this then becomes a vicious cycle that is growing as more people demand social programs to provide the safety net which gives the security blanket for people to live hazardous lifestyles. Wash rinse repeat...
Yeah sadly this is correct.
Where do Cain and Gingrich figure into this?
Gingrich is an alpha and leaders within society. What he did is fucked up, but that doesn't change the fact that women are biologically wired to find him and men like him sexually attractive. Sitting at home many women might not get this vibe, but if they met him and interacted with him on a soical basis, a lot would change their mind... Like Gingrich, Cain is an alpha and a leader within society. Women also find him sexually attractive but his personality and the way he acts around women makes them think he is a creep (which kills the attraction). He has a very poor ability to be able to read women on an emotional level.
This whole high quality men crap is repugnant. What makes them a high quality man if they are spreading themselves without any moral reservations? Seems like you missed the boat on the whole issue of what makes a man a real man...
WHen I said high quailty I should have instead said high value. Society generally dictates what is considered high value. That includes one or more of the following attributes: good locks, rich, famous, dominant, leader, strong personality, high powered job or in some way highly successful. Your definition of high quaity obviously includes things like loyal husband, dependable, loves kids etc. In that respect I agree that they are high quality attributes. However, women are not always attracted to high quality men but are instead attracted to high value men (as per my definitions). These two definitions do, however, crossover between some men.
In finishing I want to make it very clear that I don't hate women or even have much of a chip on my shoulder about all of this. I'm merely point out, as a relatively objective third party observer, the way the western societies have changed in relation to marriage, children and divorce... I've personally come to grips with the way relationships work and adapted myself to take advantage of all of this.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.