Leucosticte
Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian
-
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Posts
- 2,008
- Online
- 14h 7m
But that's really the best argument for patriarchy. The birth rate has hit a 30-year low, and shows no signs of rebounding from its downward trajectory. We can't sustain a civilization on this feminist system of girls being educated and then banging Chads throughout most of their fertile years, before settling for a beta right before they hit the wall.
The best the feminists have to offer is saying, "Well, just transfer wealth from betas to young women, so they can become welfare moms who have Chad's kids." They want to give these girls the opportunity to ride multiple Chads' cocks; they will never accept the idea that a girl should be under the authority of any particular man who has the power to punish her if she doesn't behave. (Punishment could take many forms in a patriarchal society; if he's the breadwinner, for example, he could stop buying her stuff that she wants.)
Welfare moms, though, are usually not going to actually produce a lot of kids. If they can have one or two kids, and get government support for life, why bother having more? It's usually a man who is the one wanting a large family.
Feminists don't really like the idea of welfare moms either, anyway; their preference is that girls go to college and get a high-powered career, to sustain the illusion that the two sexes are equally competent at everything. But if girls are occupied with doing that, they're not producing enough babies to keep our civilization going, in the long run.
CuckTears will never address that, because it's pretty much ideological checkmate. They have no counter-argument. They can only say, "It's better to go extinct than to accept inequality."
If we accept that, though, then everything we're building is for nothing. In that case, there really isn't much to lose by going on some kind of rampage, or LDAR'ing, or whatever.
The best the feminists have to offer is saying, "Well, just transfer wealth from betas to young women, so they can become welfare moms who have Chad's kids." They want to give these girls the opportunity to ride multiple Chads' cocks; they will never accept the idea that a girl should be under the authority of any particular man who has the power to punish her if she doesn't behave. (Punishment could take many forms in a patriarchal society; if he's the breadwinner, for example, he could stop buying her stuff that she wants.)
Welfare moms, though, are usually not going to actually produce a lot of kids. If they can have one or two kids, and get government support for life, why bother having more? It's usually a man who is the one wanting a large family.
Feminists don't really like the idea of welfare moms either, anyway; their preference is that girls go to college and get a high-powered career, to sustain the illusion that the two sexes are equally competent at everything. But if girls are occupied with doing that, they're not producing enough babies to keep our civilization going, in the long run.
CuckTears will never address that, because it's pretty much ideological checkmate. They have no counter-argument. They can only say, "It's better to go extinct than to accept inequality."
If we accept that, though, then everything we're building is for nothing. In that case, there really isn't much to lose by going on some kind of rampage, or LDAR'ing, or whatever.
