Women want a man who has income, but some men have no income. When the income comes from the government, then women might be willing to overlook men's unemployment. Either that or unemployed men can save their UBI and use it to geomaxx. I think the reason women want money is because rent, food, utilities, diapers for the kids, clothes, and other necessities are not free - all of it is for the kids.
I know a lot of people on this forum criticize betabuxxing though, but parenting isn't free. It's literally your responsibility to pay for their needs. Obviously if she's going to abuse my betabuxx by purchasing nonsense like contraception, then I don't want to be her husband. But I am definitely in favor of betabuxxing so much so that I think basic income should be for men only. IIRC Roosh V proposed something similar - basic income for men only. Some forms of betabuxxing do seem pointless - for example there's a movie called Tony Takitani where a wife buys an excessive amount of clothes. The truth is that betabuxxing is mostly a myth - marriage is not a loss of money, it's a gain because the couple will save money on rent because instead of each paying rent for different homes they live in one home. I only want my betabuxx to be spent on what I already spend and on what my kids would need(not that I have kids). And I want to betabuxx a lot because I want to have a lot of kids, which means I need to provide a lot.
Betabuxxing is a last resort due to women's materialism. If it weren't for buxx, more men would suffer from inceldom. Even normies would suffer if betabuxx didn't happen. Sure, we should normalize poor parenthood and poor people making a mass of children only to put them up for adoption because they can't provide for them so that men don't need to make buxx anymore. Either this or UBI should happen. This is why I made a thread listing homeless marriages - to convince women that they should reproduce despite poverty. We need to normalize parents like Daniel Panico and Monica Kirk. I'm not going to say women are saints given the fact that they make an excuse, poverty, to not breed.
I know a lot of people on this forum criticize betabuxxing though, but parenting isn't free. It's literally your responsibility to pay for their needs. Obviously if she's going to abuse my betabuxx by purchasing nonsense like contraception, then I don't want to be her husband. But I am definitely in favor of betabuxxing so much so that I think basic income should be for men only. IIRC Roosh V proposed something similar - basic income for men only. Some forms of betabuxxing do seem pointless - for example there's a movie called Tony Takitani where a wife buys an excessive amount of clothes. The truth is that betabuxxing is mostly a myth - marriage is not a loss of money, it's a gain because the couple will save money on rent because instead of each paying rent for different homes they live in one home. I only want my betabuxx to be spent on what I already spend and on what my kids would need(not that I have kids). And I want to betabuxx a lot because I want to have a lot of kids, which means I need to provide a lot.
Betabuxxing is a last resort due to women's materialism. If it weren't for buxx, more men would suffer from inceldom. Even normies would suffer if betabuxx didn't happen. Sure, we should normalize poor parenthood and poor people making a mass of children only to put them up for adoption because they can't provide for them so that men don't need to make buxx anymore. Either this or UBI should happen. This is why I made a thread listing homeless marriages - to convince women that they should reproduce despite poverty. We need to normalize parents like Daniel Panico and Monica Kirk. I'm not going to say women are saints given the fact that they make an excuse, poverty, to not breed.
Last edited:
